Joint Performance Review (JPR)

That's out there, feel free to sign it and, uh, at the end of the meeting we'll give you a chance as member of the public to speak if you would like to. There's a signup sheet there. All right, members of the committee and also members of the audience are going to call together the uh joint performance community team and I wanted to acknowledge first of all, uh, chair does see a quorum without objection. do see a quorum present, uh, with that going to yield to my co-chair who, uh, has an opening statement that he is going to share on behalf of both of us and with that representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, appreciate the opportunity just to offer some opening comments, um. I feel like I should sort of preface our meeting today. By clearing up some of the things that have been said after the last meeting of this committee, uh, there were a bunch of statements on social media and elsewhere that inaccurately portrayed what we're doing here and so I just want to make it clear for both the members and the general public that this is not a meeting about paper ballots. This is a meeting about the potential abuse of our initiative system. This is a meeting about the potential of out of state. Out of state canvasser law being violated, uh, it is a meeting about the potential of campaign finance laws being violated. Uh, it's about whether petition fraud, which is a class D felony has occurred in our state. These questions are very important because if there is abuse of our initiative system, that is something that the members of this body and the public should be aware of and regardless of your political beliefs, you should want. Our state laws in this area to be followed because this time the subject matter of the initiative may be something that you support. But the next time. The subject matter of the initiative may be something that you were diametrically opposed to and so if we do not consistently apply the laws, the next time an initiative is proposed on something that you don't want, then it's gonna be very hard to to credibly claim that you want the laws to be followed in that instance. So with that backdrop, I look forward to our committee today and thank you all for being here. Uh Thank you, Representative Ray, and again, uh, because of those opening comments I want to reiterate that the subject matter on discussion today relates to the uh process of gathering the signatures but also focusing on if any laws have been broken through evidence that will be presented here today with that being said, any discussion along the subject of should we have paper ballots or should we not, will not be entertained because that's not the purpose of. This meeting and if anything has been construed that is not the result of the committee intent. In fact, it was also stated at the previous committee that the reason we had that committee meeting before, uh, was because we want to focus on these areas and not on the subject of should we have paper ballots or should we not? That's not the point of the meeting and therefore, uh, comments along that line by members or the public either one, will not be allowed. Would that be And said, uh, I would like to call the names of those that were issued subpoenas and see if you are present in the room, if you are present in the room when I call your name, please stand so that we can acknowledge that you're in the room, uh, Mr. Cameron Wiley, are you present in the room? Thank you, sir, very much. We appreciate you taking time to be here. Uh, David Williams, notary public, are you in the room? Thank you, sir, for being here today. Uh, crystal Hatfield, are you in the room? OK, I'll see you behind the post. Thank you for being here today. Uh, Amanda Berry, are you in the room today? Actually, Amanda is not. We have a signed affidavit. We will be presenting into consideration in just a minute. Uh, Stephanie Johnson, are you in the room today? Thank you for being here today. And then Laurie Justice, are you in the room today? Thank you for being here today. All right, with that being said, the first people that we would like to call to the table would be David Williams and Crystal Hatfield, if you would and when you come to the table, uh, we are going to be placing everybody under oath. And so if you will, please, uh, come to the table and when you get to the table if you will, um. Um, just, uh, push the, uh, button on the microphone in front of you there, and before you take a seat, uh, I'll put you under oath if you will just push the button in front of you there on that mic, it should turn green and if you would please state your name and, um, the official capacity here as notary public place. And David, let's start with you, please. Uh, hello, my name is David Williams. I'm a notary public. I'm here to testify. Thank you, Crystal. My name is Crystal Hatfield and I'm a notary public in Faulkner County. OK, thank you very much for being here today. Uh, if you will, please raise your right hand and I'll issue the oath to you if you will, please. Uh, do each of you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you. If y'all would please take a seat, um, and I want to just personally give a shout out to Crystal, I understand you've had an accident and it is extremely painful for you to be here, but thank you for, uh, responding and being here today and just a few questions that we'd like to ask you. Uh, both of you were asked, and, uh, if it's OK with y'all, I'll call you by your first name, uh, Crystal, you were asked to, uh, notarize some forms, uh, that contain signatures of those that have been out gathering signatures for an initiative, is that correct? That is correct. And would you mind just dropping that mic down a little bit closer, please. Thank you very much. Uh, what county did you, uh, notarize those signatures in Faulkner County. OK. Did you, uh, have any that were presented to you that had redacted addresses on them at the time that they were presented to you. No, I did not. OK. uh, David would like to ask you the same questions. Um, what, uh, county did you notarize, uh, did you notarize. Uh, petition forms that were presented to you for an initiative. in Saline County in Saline County. OK, thank you. And, um, were you presented any of the forms that you notarize, did they have redacted addresses on them at the time that you notarized them. Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not, uh, supposed to look at addresses anyway. OK, um. Is that, uh, is that copies of the paperwork on the? Table down there. uh, and maybe to keep Crystal from reaching over unless you can, uh, if you would, or David reach over there, you would grab a stack. Ah I Oh That's right. And I think if I think that stack should have copies of some forms that were notarized. C3 is look for the one that says C3 at the top. And actually I'm not sure that we have any of the Faulkner County ones in there and Crystal, did you sign, did you notarize any for Conway County? Uh, no, not for Conway, unless they were brought to me in Faulkner, um, I signed it a couple of different addresses in Faulkner and some people I, I believe were coming in from other counties to have me notarize those. OK, uh, actually, uh, I'll let y'all flip through. They're not numbered, but, uh, Crystal, you did, uh, it's number 25. The numbers on the right hand side of the page and it's turned sideways, 25, Crystal. C3, sir, I'm sorry. I believe that's correct. Is that right? C3. Yes, ma'am. And David, if you look through, you'll find some that have your names on it. Yes sir, I see. OK. So while she's looking for hers and you found yours, David, when you notarized, um, Do you remember or do you recall those addresses being redacted in the bottom left-hand corner. Uh, not that I'm aware of, no, sir. OK, so it would be your testimony that when you signed them, they were not redacted. Would that be your testimony? No sir. What would be your testimony then? They, they were fine. They like as far as I was like looking at them, um, I'm not supposed to like. Observe the addresses I'm supposed to observe the faces of the people to in their name to make sure it's the same person. Uh, but no, sir, I did not look and see any differences in the addresses. OK. I'm, I'm sorry, I see a sheet here that has the date of birth. Oh, never mind, that's your reduction. I'm sorry, redact the date of birth. That's our bureau policy to protect that vital information, uh, David, based on the last committee's testimony, we're going to get somebody up here in a minute to verify all this, um, the, Two means of which you as a notary, um, Which sign is you would verify the address. Um, and then secondly, you would also, uh, be able to give testimony that this is a person that you know that is of good standing, etc. So when you, when you notarized these, um, You, you didn't compare the address on the bottom left-hand corner of the sheet. Against the driver's license that had the photo ID on it. Uh, no, sir, and I looked in the handbook of the notary, um, before coming here to verify, uh, it's not required to look at the address. It's required to look at their uh picture and their uh name to verify it is them, basically verifying that the same person is who I'm notarizing, um, and I did look at that and it does not say that I have to do that, uh, but no, sorry, I did not. OK. Were you given blank forms that were, uh, had no signatures on them and notarize them prior to any of the signatures of those that were gathered. Did you sign any blank forms? Are you referring to like Blake petitions without anything on it and then me signing it and then giving it back. Yes, sir. No, sir. OK, very good. All right, so your testimony is that you did, uh, you did not look in the bottom left-hand corner of the forms that you were signing and you cannot say Certainty that those addresses were redacted at the time that you saw them. That is what I'm saying, yes, sir. OK, so you couldn't see the blackout marks in the bottom left-hand corner. I, I didn't see any no, sir, not that I'm aware of, but I, I also did quite a few, uh. Uh, notaries, so it, it kind of gets into a blur after that. OK, great, uh, Crystal on years, did you find page 25? That has your notary on it, uh, for, uh, signatures that have Saline County listed on them. Yes. OK, I see that. OK. In the bottom left-hand corner of that, you'll see the addresses have been redacted. Do you, do you recall at the time that you notarized these were they redacted. It was not OK. So your testimony is that you signed sheet. Number 25, uh, with Saline County residents and that that redaction in the bottom left hand corner was not there at the time you signed it. So that would imply somebody changed that after you signed it, is that correct? I have noticed a, a Reaction or a correction anywhere. Usually I, I try to, uh, initial those and something like that happens, so that's great. OK, um. So Dave, you didn't initial anything that you saw like she's testified, OK. Do, do each of you keep logbooks? I do not, uh, it's not required by law, strongly encouraged. No, sir. I, I tend to try and avoid doing a lot of notaries because I don't like being in court, OK. Well, hopefully you're being, you feel like you're being treated today, OK. Um, no, nobody likes to be in the position, anybody in this room is in, but so we, we really do appreciate you responding being here today. That's, that's great citizenship, um, uh, Chris, so you keep a log book? um, in your walk. Do you record the address or what do you record in the logbook that you keep the address in which I performed the notary. Usually it's my office. Um, I believe in this case, there were 3 different locations. Three different locations, one being my office, OK, and the other two locations were uh Amity at Lin's Glass. ri ' s Auto Glass. It's a, it's on Amity. I'm not quite sure of the number. And, um, also, uh, home to suits in Conway. OK. By the interstate. OK. Did you happen to notice? Well, The addresses that you signed, do you have any recollection where those in state or out of state addresses that were on the forms that you signed at the time you were. I know I can remember one, I know one was Arizona because I had just came back from Phoenix visiting my brother, so that one stuck, but I, I really didn't, you know, I made sure they were who they said they were and that's what was written on the form and. There was a lot to notarize. OK. All right. Um, and in your book, you record the addresses in your, in your logbook, do you record the address of the person or what did you say about that? the address in which I do the notary, where you do the, yeah, OK, very good. All right, um, members, do you have any questions of either of these two folks? I OK, David. I'm sorry, Representative Ray, uh, my question for Mr. Hatfield. It's similar to the question that, uh, Senator Hammer just asked. at our previous meeting, one of the notaries that, um, responded that. The the The signer, uh, or sorry, the address that was on the form was of someone that was out of state, the person that was getting the form notarized of the people who you checked, um, IDs for, can you recall whether they were Arkansas driver's licenses or whether they were from a different state. The majority of them were Arkansas, uh, I'd say that least maybe one, possibly 2 were Arizona. I don't recall like all of them obviously cause it's been a few months, but that's my recollection. OK, but. Some of them were from another state. OK. All right. Thank you. OK Um, just out of curiosity, and Crystal, let me ask you, and, and, um, As you're notarizing any conversation that would, uh, that you think would be important to share here today that you might have had with those that were asking you to, um, verify their forms to notarize their forms as far as, hey, we're in town staying for a couple of weeks. We're going back home. When we're going back home, any of that kind of stuff that you would. Care to share. No, it was very mechanical. Um, once we got started, I mean, there were hundreds of sheets to sign. So once we got started, they were on one side of the table filling out their information and then it would come to me to do my notarization and stamp it. and then on to the next, we really Didn't converse that much. During the whole thing. Do you think you would have noticed if that's the way that they were doing it, that somebody would have been retacting an address before they gave it to you I would have known if, I mean, I would have noticed a redacted address had it come to me right then as the notarization was taking place, and you would have initialed it is what you said a while ago, at some point after writing my name that many times, I think I even had to initial my own mistake because I spelled my name wrong. OK, OK, sorry. OK. David, anything you want to share about any conversations anything to that you want to share with the committee, uh, it's pretty much identical circumstances, so no, sir. OK. All right, uh, we have no other questions from members, so I'm, uh, going to excuse you and Crystal. I know you're very uncomfortable. It's not the chair's intent to call you back, uh, if you want to hang around, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine. It's not, it's not my intent, uh, but if something comes up later. I'll try and stay for a bit. OK, thank you. All right, let's do this next. Thank you all for being here today. Anything y'all want to share, just give you open mic. Anything you want to share. OK, very good. and members one thing, while, uh, I'm gonna ask it this time Michael Harry to come, uh, to the table. He is the director of legal and managing attorney for the Legal division, Arkansas Secretary of State, uh, Michael, you're in a room. If you would please come, we're gonna put you under oath. Uh, the one thing I meant to say a while ago, uh, what was also stated at the first meeting is that part of the exercise that we're doing in the committee both last time and today again is not to debate whether we ought to have paper ballots or not. This is to focus on the system by which signatures are. Gathered and see if there's legislation that will be proposed, uh, especially along the terms of resident or domicile, uh, that seems to be an area of conflict, so part of this is for the purpose of making sure that any current laws that they were broken would be referred to the proper authority, but also if there are changes that we want to make during the legislation, legislative session, we will, uh, with that said, Michael would push that button there, please, and state your name and title for the record, please. Uh, yes, sir. Michael Harry. I'm the general counsel and managing attorney for the Secretary of State. All right. Thank you, if you will, please stand and we'll swear you in under oath. Do you solely swear and firm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, but the truth shall help you again. Thank you. Uh, just a couple questions, um, to clarify, uh, you've heard the testimony of the notaries in front of you. Is there anything that you heard, um, that, that might cause you concern as I understand you're the one that oversees or you have depth of knowledge about notaries, is that correct? That is correct, um. No, I did not hear anything that, uh, gave me, uh, concern. I know that in, uh, the last meeting that there was Some misconceptions with regards to what a notary does. Um, and it's their job to, uh, make sure that the individual who's signing is that individual. When it comes to the contents of the document itself. They don't have any responsibility or liability there. If you put that on them, then you're essentially making them an attorney, um, their, their sole job is to make sure that the person who's signing is that person. OK, and how would a notary establish that to where they could defend it later if they needed to, uh, they, uh, the signer will need to, uh, submit, um, uh, assuming they're not personally known to the notary, the person would need to submit a photo identification, driver's license usually. And what would they be looking for on the driver's license if you have somebody that you don't personally know, never seen before, um, what would you be looking for as a notary. To, to identify what you just said. The, the name in the photo to see what the name is on the identification to see the photo of the individual and to match that photo up with the individual. OK, would the address have any bearing in their decision it doesn't, and for a couple of reasons, I mean, The address on a driver's license doesn't always match the address that the individual is going to put on a contract. It could be their business address that they put on there, they could have moved within the last 45 days and haven't changed their address yet. So address is not ever really been a concern for the notary. So you heard testimony a while ago, um, that, uh, Crystal signed a form and then she testified that she did not sign any forms. That had redacted addresses, yet the forms that were turned in in the case of Saline County, uh, and Conway County had addresses that were redacted on them after the notary had signed them. How does that align with what the law allows? Well, as far as regards to the notary, um, it really wouldn't have any, any bearing as far as the notaries, uh, liabilities on things. Now, if you want to get into whether or not that was a uh a fraudulent activity. That's, that's a different question. Um, not, not one that I, I have the answer to. I don't know that the the law is particularly clear on that. There might be a statute that I'm not. It doesn't come to mind at the moment, but that would be a question for a court, um, to, to determine, um, and at that point. Um, the individual that would be liable for that would be, uh, one, the individual who signed, uh, and to the individual if different, the one that redacted and put the new address on there. OK. Is it, do you know or or maybe you're That's what you just say, so for clarification, do you know, is it a violation of law that if a notary signs a form and then it is altered after that, do you know, is that a violation of the law? And I think there's a copy of a handout and is that outside your realm of expertise. I don't want to put you in a position where you got to make a, a, a decision. It's not, it would not be a, it would not be a violation of law as as regards to the notary. Now the notary part in it, but the person that would alter. That document after the notary signed it. Do you know what that's a statute that deals with the filing of fraudulent statements with regards to um uh election forms and documents. I can't think of the. Statute off the top of my head, so don't quote me on that, but. OK, um. Members any Any questions, um. Senator Dolefield. I, I OK. Representative Wootton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you the question. Who, who is responsible for the fact that Almost all of these in C3 have The same address. Who, who's who? Who would be responsible? Do we have a current statute that addresses the 1520, 30 people could live at the same address. Well, the liabilities for that would fall on the signer, uh, uh, the canvasser, I suppose, who, who signed the form itself. They're the ones that certifying that they did their job in accordance with the law. not the person that signed the petition, but the person that signed the notary request. Not the notary, the, the person that, that whose signature was notarized. Yes verified that that's their responsibilities to report the correct address. I think, think of it in, in terms of like a, a contract that's been notarized, right? You've got two parties that signed for it. If there's something that goes wrong with the contract, the individuals that signed it are the ones responsible for that, not the notary. OK, if the current law was changed to where docile, would that have made this a violation if it was a call. Uh If the, if the definition were were changed to be more specific to include domicile as well as well as a residence, yes, that would be abolished. OK, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, uh, any other questions with me or any other questions from members? OK, thank you, Mark, if you don't mind, hang around a little bit if you will, just in case something comes back up. All right, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members want to go back on the agenda. Uh, one thing I need to do that I skipped over and that is consideration to approve the October 1st minutes. Uh, could you get a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Motion 2 Got a second. This is to approve the minutes from the last meeting, any discussion or questions? I say I post, OK. Next, we want to bring Uh, we'd like to bring Cameron Wiley, please, manager of the Home 2 Suites Hotel, please, sir. Oh, yes sir, come around. Thank you. Mr Wiley, thank you for being here today. If you would just push the button there on that mic in front of you it should turn green. And if you would, just your name and who you're representing here today, which would be home to suits, please. My name is. Cameron Wiley, and I'm the general manager of the home to Suites in Conway, Arkansas. All right, thank you for doing your civic duty to be here today. We appreciate it very much. I am going to place you under oath if you would please raise your right hand and do you swingly swear and affirm testimony you're about to give will be truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, sir. Um, Which while there's no reason for us to think that you have participated, um, in anything that is out of, uh, the nature of complying with the law, but you can provide some information, and that's what we're looking for today is just some information as you heard me say a while ago, we're trying to look at the process, see if we need to change the process or see if the current process have been violated. So, uh, just a few questions for you if you would, please. Um, you are the, uh, you're the general manager of the Hot Suites, uh, hotel in Conway, correct? Correct. OK. And, uh, during a period of time this last summer, you had quite a few folks that were staying with you, uh, that were there for the purpose of gathering signatures. Is that your understanding or do you have any knowledge of that? That is, uh, my understanding, yes. OK. And those individuals when they registered, did they register individually or were they registered by somebody else to stay at the motel. The majority of them were registered by a singular individual, very few of them, uh, registered under their own name. OK, what, what was that, uh? Name that they were registered under policer. The name they were mostly registered under was Conrad Reynolds. OK. And how was the room paid for? How were the rooms paid for? Um, the rooms were paid for by different means. There was uh one, when I say one, there was one giant check for $13,000 that was split between multiple rooms and then towards the end it was paid for with a, a credit card. OK, and the credit card was in whose name do you remember that? I do not know. I was not the one who actually administered the card. OK. Do you remember the time frame or do you have the time frames in which the individuals, uh, were, were, uh, at the hotel? Uh, yes, I actually printed off all of the registrations for, uh, the rooms that were under Conrad Reynolds as well as a few of the other ones that I was able to uh pick up uh some of them were short stays within the middle of June. July, um, there's one right here that started in mid-June and didn't check out until early August. Those are gonna be the time frames that uh are for almost all of these stays and and early August, do you happen to have that date in front of you? Was it August 4th, 5th, 6th August 7th. That was the that was the date of checkout here. Um, as I said, I have about 15 receipts. This one was August 5th, so if they didn't check out in that time frame in August, it may have been like half of the State where they checked in in June and checked out in July. OK. Do you happen to have the, the names of those that were there after August 5th. Um, the only one that I believe I have the name of as far as being there after August 5th, uh, was a Gay Golic. She checked out on the 7th. Um. That one is, you checked out before and then the last one. This one checked out in July. So only Gay Goleck from the records that I have as far as names that are not Conrad Reynolds, uh, checked out after the 5th. OK, and that's spelled G A I L and then the last name is G O L E C. That is correct. And that was August 7th, you said that's correct. OK. And as far as the state again, the addresses that they registered under, uh, do you know what addresses you have them registered under? All of the addresses, uh, with the exception of one were registered to a Conway address 4699 Prince Street, Unit 9 in Conway, Arkansas. The only The only one that wasn't that address was the Gay Gole who had an Arizona address. OK, so all the other ones were actually registered at the motel under a Conway address. That is correct. OK, not individualized like their driver's license or address on the driver's license. That is, that is Yes, they were all under that Prince Street address in Conway. OK. Did you check with, uh, did you check with your corporate legal, uh, before you came to testify today? I did not. OK. Do you know of any reasons why we couldn't have copies of what you brought here today or do you need to check with your legal to see before you release those, uh, to us as a committee. I can check with the, uh, with legal unfortunately, my, uh, human resources director is out today and so it would. wouldn't be until tomorrow, until I get a uh pinpoint on that, but I can check to see if there's somebody else that would have the uh the knowledge on, on the uh procedure for releasing this. OK. So what I'd like to ask you because I don't want you to be in trouble, don't want us to be in trouble or anybody else to be in trouble. Would you check with your corporate legal please and if you are able to release those to us, um, would you, um, uh, you'd be willing to do that if you get the clearance. Is that, is that agreeable? That is that, yes, I'd be. Time to release these to you, OK. And final question for me, um, Are you owed anything? Have you been paid in full? Uh, from my understanding, none of these have any outstanding balances. Everything was paid in full, uh, there's no bad debt accrued uh due to all of these stays, OK, and what was the total amount you were paid again? Oh, I did not. I didn't add all that mentioned a number a while ago, was it 13,500 that was a check that was uh paid to cover the outstanding balance, and that was in July, uh, and then so there was probably another, I'd say just an estimate, 11 to 13,000 that was accrued from that point on forward. So probably about 20. 4 to 26,000. OK, I'm gonna recognize, uh, Representative Ray. Good afternoon, Mr. Wiley. Just a couple of quick questions, um, $13,000 sounds like a lengthy hotel stay or maybe there were a lot of people there. Can you estimate or tell me how many, how many individuals were with this group that were staying at the hotel. Um, it would have to be an estimation, even though I do have um the amount of rooms which I added up to 15 stays. That doesn't necessarily mean there were 15 people. Uh, some of the rooms, uh, could have had double occupancy, so it could have been more than 15, but, um. I would say that at least 12. Definitely not less than that. And I don't know if you had conversations with any of the guests at the hotel, but did any of them happen to mention to you or allude to, um, the notion that they were being paid to be there or, or that they were doing paid work while they were there. Uh, no, I did not have any, uh, type of conversation with them, um. Uh, they were there to do a job and generally speaking, if I'm talking with a guest, it's either there's a problem with the state or they are there on leisure and we're just having normal regular conversation if you're there at work, I lead them to their own devices. I understand. Thank you. All right, Representative Wooton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wiley, do you, uh, Check out each day. At the at the at the service desk. I don't work the service desk. I have front desk associates and, uh, uh guest service agents that do the check-in and check-out process not usually in the back office to checkouts and there's any kind of abnormalities like, um, if there's an uh, if there's a state that doesn't have a resolved amount, say they, they have a credit card that's declining or if it's an issue with the with the guest, then I will review that, otherwise there really isn't. Much need for me to go through and check every single individual reservation. Would you call a $13,000 check. I havenormality is 00% an abnormality, uh, when I received that check the same day because I wanted to make sure that we got paid for our services. I immediately took it to our bank that we use for all of our deposits. Everything cleared, so at that point I didn't have any reason to uh think about it any further. OK, did you, uh, Does your bank keep a record of that check? Uh, I'm, I'm pretty sure that they would keep a record of that check. We actually, yes, they would copy the check, but they you didn't approve the check. I'm sorry you didn't improve the check at the time that it was written. They didn't call you and ask you or call you to the front desk and say, will you approve this $13,000 check, or do they have the authority to accept that. They checked with me before they accepted it. They came to my office and asked, would it be OK if the group used a check to pay for their outstanding balance that they have so far. And whenever I did the calculation, it came out to 13,000. I said, I normally. They don't do this, but go ahead and write it, and I'll immediately take it to the bank to make sure that it clears. And so I approved that. In other words, you had several possessions of the check. Uh, several possessions a period of time you have the check, you, you had to check in your office from your service clerk from the desk clerk for about an hour, yes you didn't notice the name on the check. Um, I did not pay much. I think it was Conrad Reynolds, but I don't think or do you know? I think, OK. Would you, could you, if it's permissible, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see a copy of that check if If he gets approval from his legal that it's uh permissible that he could get a copy of that check from the bank for us. Yes, sure. I'll, uh, I, I would make that request if you get it cleared with your legal, uh, we'd like to see that, please. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. B. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. All right. Any other questions from members? Uh, Representative Allen, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilder, I just want to ask you a personal question. Did you get permission from your legal division to come down here to testify today before you came in. Uh, no, I did not ask for legal permission. I was served the subpoena from a state trooper and so I felt like it was my duty to make sure that I had all uh necessary information pertaining to this, uh, case with me, but no, I did not clear it with the corporate office. hypothetical situation. Can I follow up with one quick question, OK, if I'm a guest at your hotel. And somebody called your front desk. And ask if Fred Allen is a guest at your hotel. Do y'all give out that information? Uh, we do not give out that information, um, as a guest at the hotel, um, we are, uh, obligated to protect the identity of all those that are staying with us, uh, so, uh, we usually say we can't give out that information now if somebody says, I'd like to be connected to this person's room, uh, what we do is we call that room and ask, well, we asked the identity of the person who's calling, and then we place them on a hold, called that room and said, Do I have permission to connect you, uh, to connect this person with you, and if they say no, uh, we, uh, do not do that. I guess my question is, did you have permission to release this information to us today? I was not given uh the uh permission from corporate office, as I said before, I didn't release this, but uh being is that this is information that is directly pertaining to this case, uh, I, uh, brought. All of the uh substantial items. Thank you. Mr. Wiley, you were served with a subpoena, correct? That is correct. Two different instances one through email digitally and then one with a state trooper. OK. Um, well, thank you for being here because in the subpoena. That you were issued. Not only were you subpoenaed, but your records were subpoenaed also. Um, don't know if you remember that or not, but in that subpoena, uh, Representative Allen, those records that he has where he was instructed to bring him with him, uh, as a matter of courtesy, uh, we are asking before they're given to us, um, that you just check with your legal, uh, because wherever this goes, if it goes anywhere, uh, we want to make sure all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted, but in the subpoena. Those records were requested to be brought so we could establish some things here today. All right, um. Are you, are you down there, Representative Allen or? And because I just want to make sure that Mr. Wiley was not getting in any trouble coming down here by giving us this information today. And that's we want to protect him and all those that are coming today, um, because we're just after the facts is all, so. All right. uh, Mr. White, we have no other, no other questions for you at this time, uh, perhaps if you don't mind, if you can stay around that That's great. If not, we understand, we appreciate you being here today, OK? All right. Thank you. Anything else you wanna add? Anything you want to share? Um, I did have um. So this is probably related, but it has nothing to do with their state, uh, case in point, I did have some mail come to some of the people that were on the subpoena. We didn't have their names on the actual room records, but from my experience, the only time that you have mail forwarded to a hotel as if you're staying there for an extended period of time or if it's something that's an emergency and this being from uh look. From the Bureau of Legislative Research. I didn't think that it was an emergency thing where it had to be out 1 or 2 days, so that establishes a record of uh temporary residency. Right, which you were not able to deliver those because they were no longer there. Is that correct? That is correct. Uh, also because their names weren't in our registry, we couldn't look up to see uh a recent address, so I figured I'd bring them here. So you really didn't know whether they were in state or out of state. All you had to go off of was the address that was given to you, right? That is correct. OK, thank you. All right. uh, members at this time I'd like to call, uh, Stephanie Johnson, Justice of the peace elect for Sling County District 12 and Laurie Justice Citizen, and while they're coming to the table, uh, members, one thing I wanted to point out, uh, is you have an affidavit in your, uh, packet from Amanda Berry, who is a notary, and, uh, she has substantiated if you look at point number 3, then on the 10th stage July she notarized signature sheets for a petition. To include paper ballots in Arkansas elections at the county level and the current resident address were not redacted at the time that I notarized them, so she is substantiating that when she signed the form that there was not a redacted address on it at the time. And she had that notarized by somebody else, by the way. All right, thank you, ladies for being here today. Uh, if you would please state your name and, uh, your title for the record, then I'm gonna put you under oath, please. And just push that button right there in front of the lights should turn green. It's Stephanie Johnson, JPle for Slane County and Laurie Laurie justice citizen. All right, thank you all. If you would please stand, we want to put you under oath if you would, please. You vote solemnly swear in a firm testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you. All right, um, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a statement before we begin, if I may be permitted to do so? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. OK. I'm a Republican nominee for Justice of the peace. I am unopposed in the general election and therefore, am a JP elect in Saline County. I helped gather signatures to ballot initiative. First, in regards to Mr. Lancaster's testimony, he and Mrs. Lancaster have told multiple lies about a dozen people and quite a few incurrences within our committee. So I'm not sure how much we can believe the testimony. And in fact, I do not believe much of what he has said. He was untruthful in his previous appearance before his committee. In regards to his involvement through ballot process. He made everyone believe he had no knowledge of the happenings within the ballot committee until after problems were discovered when in reality he was involved in the entire process. Second, on my assistant's sister gathering for their ballot initiative. The facts are as follows. In the spring of this year, I learned about a chance to to possibly ballots in Saline County and jump at the chance to organize a petition drive. I created the text thread to communicate with volunteers and began to set up collecting signatures. I needed a little help organizing and Laurie Justice offered to help me. We worked together to keep the volunteers motivated, including passing out water and letting them know about various events where we could get signatureies collected at just fireworks shows. Signature sheets were gathered weekly by various representatives of the ballot committee. On that, on the final day, a ballot committee representative brought the box of signed petition sheets, and he, Laurie Justice, and I turned them in. I was never paid for my services. I was only a volunteer. I work solely. With other volunteers and I did not organize paid, uh, canvassers. I do for my ballots, which is now have become a plank of the RNC platform and I worked hard to get this issue on the ballot in Saline County for voters. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, the questions that I have for you are this. We have established today that when the notaries signed the forms that at least on, uh, in two areas, Conway and Celine, that those were altered between the time that the notary signed them and the time that they were turned in to the county clerk, specifically Sling County. Uh, it was given testimony in the previous committee by, uh, uh, county clerk, Doug Kurs, I think I saw in the room here today, um, that y'all too And a gentleman which is unknown, uh, accompanied Yall to turn those into the county clerk. Is, is that accurate so far? OK. Who is, who is the gentleman that was with you all, if you don't mind, please. Will Huff. We'll have, OK, thank you. Um, and so here's, here's the question what we wanted to know is between the time the notary signed him and y'all were the last ones to touch him, to turn them in. Those addresses got altered by somebody. So did y'all alter the addresses. OK. Do you know who did? I did not. No. Who did you get the Petitions from It was Wh who gave us the box of them. OK, so you took possession from Will Huff then. Yes, sir. OK. uh, did you, did you look at the petitions between the time you got them from him and, and turned him in. Laurie. No, OK. OK, um, and, and what we're trying to do is chain of custody because somewhere between the time that the notary signed him in the time they got turned in. They were altered in that the addresses were redacted and that's what we're trying to get to. And, and that's why it's important for y'all to be here and, and we do appreciate y'all being here. So do you have anything that you think you can share with the committee that will help us determine who it was that altered the addresses. Nothing that I'm aware of, no. OK. All right. Any questions from members? And representative Ray, thank you, uh, Ms. Justice and Ms. Johnson for being here, um, just a couple of quick questions to follow up on that. Has anyone from the ballot group, uh, that organized this effort, have they had, has anyone from that group reached out to you in advance of your testimony today about your testimony? No. Conrad Reynolds called me. Can you provide us with some sort of Content about how that conversation went? Did he instruct you on what to say or anything to that effect? Now he just, um. I guess encourage me to just tell the truth and what I have done. and we certainly appreciate that. Um, my last question is on our, I don't know if you had an, uh, a pack, a packet that was handed out today. There's an exhibit here, C2. Um, I keep seeing this name both in the packet on C2 and in the forms on C3. Do either of you know who Joshua James is or Joshua James Lawrence or Joshua James Ryan Lawrence never heard of him before. I've never heard of it until I was listening, go ahead, I didn't know. I don't know who he is. OK, um, and both of you, both of you said you were, um, volunteer signature gatherers, correct, yes. Lancaster in his testimony last time, um, said that I was a paid canvasser and I want to state on the record right now. I wasn't even reimbursed for my expenses, such as fuel or if I went and bought water. For the volunteers, um, we work strictly with volun with volunteers and we were volunteers ourselves and never received a dime, right? OK, got you. And did you, in the course of volunteering, did you meet any canvassers that were not from Arkansas? Yes, yes. And did any of them No, tell me about that. Where were they from? Uh, I didn't talk to them, um, when I, most of the time when I made contact with them was when I was out delivering waters. I understand they didn't even come on the scene until later on. She and I were doing volunteers first that's all who was out in Saline County. So what I would do is drive around and this was only on occasion. Um, this is really hot, was June, July, and uh take waters to people. So if I saw the orange van out there, I would pull over. Even though it wasn't our people that we were working with, I would pull over and see if they needed water or whatever, but um I never really got into a conversation with any people who were from out of state. Our people were mostly Saline County Republican Committee volunteers. And then, uh, going back to this exhibit C2 that's in the packet this. Appears to be a Facebook post advertising that if you're, uh, a non-Arkansas resident, you can be paid, uh, $1200 a week to gather signatures were, were either of you aware of an effort to pay people from out of state to come in and gather signatures had been paid, um, some people were paid, some people weren't. Our people weren't paid. So like I said, that's not, I didn't have anything to do with that and neither did she. Um, I did have, um, a phone call and I noticed Mr. uh Johnny McMahan is here today, um, during the course of this, he reach out and call me and talked about us getting signatures. And he mentioned, you know, about being paid and I told him we're not paying. This is totally volunteer. We're 100% volunteer and that's all we dealt with. So, um, as far as, you know, Who got paid what or who stayed where or any of that, that was nothing that we dealt with, so I do want to say, I do want to say something in his testimony last time, he did make a mistake and I don't think he did this purposely, but he did say that that she and I told him that it was hard to get signatures and I do want to say it was not hard to get signatures. It was hard to get volunteers to go out and get. So I want to clarify that for the record, who was it that said that Mr. McMahan. Oh, OK, got you. Uh, well, thank you to both of you for being here and for sharing your testimony with us today. Thank you. Any, anything not the subject of Should we have paper ballots or should we, but along the lines of the discussion what we're here to meet about today, um. Actually, sorry, I'm going to go to Representative Wotton, I did not see it. Representative, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies, did, did you receive any other type of compensation besides a check. Did you receive a gift card. You didn't receive anything from them. OK. How are the petitions given to you in a box? What type of box was the box covered? Yes. it was, there was a clear like a. A Tupperware at Walmart. OK, so you could see the contents of the box. You could see them through the side, the top, it was a plastic box that had a solid color top, so you could see them through the sides, but you couldn't see through the top and look at them. So in other words, you, you're, your testimony before it under oath today is that you didn't see any of the black lines that were on our documents here today as exhibit C 3 shows we did not see those, no. You didn't see any marks on any ballot coming on any petition or notary, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. um. Representative Tosh, Dwight Tosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to a question that was asked of you a while ago, uh, You said that you did receive a phone call and I wasn't really sure who you said called you prior to your testimony before you appeared before this committee today. Who did you say made that phone call? It was Colonel Khan. OK, about how long did that phone call last? 5 minutes, 10 minutes. Maybe a half hour or more. So in a half an hour conversation the only thing that you said a while ago that was said was that he encouraged you to tell the truth, so is that pretty well in a half an hour that was. That was the, that was it in the conversation, just tell the truth, nothing else about your testimony here today. We talked about the process of, uh, signature gathering and all that and how. He. Believes that there are no laws broken and I I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the law is, so. That's what we discussed. OK, and no way was that conversation in any way to influence you regarding your testimony here today in the 30 minute conversation, none at all. OK. May I make a comment? Yes, ma'am, because Colonel Conrad Reynolds' name is being thrown around a lot today. And I do want to say from experience that I've known him for several years and Will Huff as well. Um, and I believe that they are honest people and they would not do anything unethical without knowing about that. I believe that they operated under the advice of their attorney and While you may not agree with his stance on paper ballots, which some of you may not. He's not a dishonest man. And he has top secret security clearance. You don't get that by not following rules and laws. So I just want to say that. OK. You referenced the attorney who was the attorney that he was taking instruction from that would be Clint Lancaster, I believe was the attorney for REIA which is the paper ballot committee that That did this, this initiative, the county initiative was, uh, not AVII as referenced in your last, uh, meeting, it was REIA was actually a ballot committee. And do you know that that's actually a ballot committee that's registered with the state. OK. All right. All right, um. Senator Dismay, let's go to you first. And just make sure I understand. So, There, there's a separation between Mr. Lancaster and Conrad Reynolds or? No, he's their attorney. They are working together. OK, I was just from, I was trying to make sure I understood the representative. They're, that he's their attorney. So there's not a separation, but you believe 1 may be doing something. Somewhat nefarious and the others doing anything nefarious. What I'm saying is that um that. I believe that anything that REIA has done most likely was done under the consultation and advice of their attorney. All right. Thank you. Senator Johnson Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies, for being here. I full disclosure, Miss Jefice, you're chair of the Pulaski County Republican Committee. I'm a member of your committee, am I not? OK, I just want to fully disclose that, um. I, I want to emphasize to not just these witnesses, but all that we're not probing probing into the character of anyone involved in this process and people can be of great character and either with a mistake or or even a misunderstanding of the law, uh, violate the law, and a lot of people have uh have come forth the last hearing there was a discussion between the difference between domicile. And residents and I perhaps that needs to be clarified, but, uh, I just want to emphasize if you please limit your testimony to the facts we're, because that's what we're doing here when we Ascertain facts, it helps us to pass better laws and to correct issues that where the law may be unclear. So I just, I want to emphasize that to you and again, I thank you both for coming in for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. I have nobody else signed up to, uh, ask any questions, just give you all an opportunity to any final comments y'all would like to make. No. OK. Appreciate y'all being here. Thank you for being here today and for sharing with the committee. All right, next up I'd like to get Graham Sloan to the table, please. Graham, if you would please name and tile for record. I'm gonna put you on oath too. Everybody should get put under oath today. Graham Sloan, director of the Arkansas Ethics Commission. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth shall help you go. Thank you. Representative Ray Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for being here. Um, so I guess, To start with, can you please explain or outline, um, when or under what circumstances a group is required to form a ballot question committee? Yes, uh, let me begin by saying that the ethics Commission has jurisdiction over a number of areas, and one of those areas is the Disclosure Act for public initiatives, referenda, and measures referred to voters. The, that act contains, uh, registration requirements that aren't applicable to everybody spending money, but there are reporting requirements that are applicable to everybody, uh, A ballot question is a question in the form of a statewide, county-wide, municipal or school district initiative or referendum. It's basically a question that's going to get presented to voters at an election. You become a ballot question committee when you receive. Uh, contributions in order to expressly advocate the qualification, disqualification, passenger defeat of a ballot question. Um, and then, uh, the trigger for registration on a committee is, uh, within 5 days of receiving or spending $500 and then reporting the trigger for reporting, even if it's your own money, even if it was an individual spending his or her own money out of their paycheck or if it was a business or other entity that was spending its own money out of its corporate treasury. Um, it, it would trigger reporting. During the the month in which it spent $500 and so, uh, essentially, if you're out there expressly advocating the qualification, disqualification, passage or defeat of a ballot measure, you're gonna trigger reporting and if you're receiving contributions to do it, then you're gonna trigger registration as a committee as well. OK, thank you for that. And, um, so the, the requirement to form a ballot committee after you've Raised or expended $500. Is that applicable to both a statewide measure and a local measure. Yes, the definition of ballot question includes, uh, statewide, county, municipal, uh, or school district initiative or referendum, so it really doesn't matter what level of government you're at, it applies. Um, and are there any ballot question committees that have been formed related to the subject matter, uh, at hand. There was a group called Restore Election Integrity in Arkansas that filed a statement of organization back on October 19th of 2023. Uh, it, one of the required information fields is What ballot measure or ballot questions you're seeking to influence and on that original filing, it, the group had registered and indicated that it was, uh, gonna be, uh, advocating with respect to a constitutional amendment to require handmarked ballots and to the extent that it's constitutional amendment, that'd be statewide. So what about, uh, for these various local measures, I think there's 7 or 8 different County county level measures that were. We are being pursued where their ballot, where their ballot question committees formed for any of those? No, sir, we looked and then I will say that this morning, uh, restore lacks integrity in Arkansas had faxed to the commission and amended a statement of organization that did indicate that it was gonna be, uh, Engaged at the, at the county level, um, the group had, uh, Previously not filed any reports, but the amended registration today was accompanied by 9 reports that, uh, Reflected activity. And financial activity, I think the, it, it was, the reports for January through September and I don't think there was any, uh, I don't think they crossed that $500 threshold till maybe June, but so the June, July and August. Reports, uh, did have uh significant financial activity reported on. OK, and what can you repeat? when did you say you received those reports this morning about 9 a.m. OK. Um. Let me ask you this, if a group just Fails to register. And then it becomes obvious that they're expanding. Money in excess of $500. You don't, you don't have a way to. Contact them, you don't know who they are. How, how do you handle a situation like that? I mean, How would someone even How would someone even file a complaint against a group that just completely fails and neglects to register. I think that's a good question. And, uh, I'm not sure how you would seek to find out the identity of the people behind the group. I mean, they would, um, they would have to do something to, to make that information available, you know, that sometimes you could, um, have a newspaper ad and, and we've seen this where there's a newspaper ad and it attributes the activity to the, to a particular group, and then, you know, there's no, you can't find any information on that group. So, uh, I mean, the identity of the person that's, uh, receiving the contributions or making the expenditures, that's, that's necessary if you're wanting to pursue noncompliance issues, you need the identity and, and. Uh, I don't know how you would get it other than somebody would have to tell you, or you, you know, you, you could maybe you could, if it was a newspaper ad, maybe you could contact the newspaper and see who paid for it, but, um, and then the, the filings that you received this morning, are they, are they posted on the website or will they be, when would they be posted, it's they were received by facsimile, which, uh, in order to perfect the filing, the original will have to be received within 10 days. But when we receive facsimile copies, we do stamp and received and put them on the website. And then when the originals come in, if it's within 10 days, they would be stamped filed, uh, using the date of receipt of the fax and then. I posted, you know, within a reasonable time. OK. All right, that, that's all the questions that I had for you. Thank you. Senator Rice Thank you. Uh, Mr. Long, thank you for being here today. Just thinking about. There's so much of the stuff we've seen over the years, the only way that you can have anything to do with anything is if a complaint's filed. Is that correct? Yes, the commission does have investigatory powers that can issue subpoenas and take sworn statements, but those powers do not attach until there's been a complaint, but it, it would take as far as your knowledge, it would take the legislature to pass anything to put something on if somebody turns in a ballot initiative if it had a law attached to it that says. You got the ethics commission has to sign off that you're registered. Deal that would have to be changed, would it not? Currently we are the filing office, but there's no, you know, we don't check anything to turn in a ballot if it would take us to pass a law and say. We've got to have an OK from the ethics commission saying you have registered as an official. Legal group to to attain. Signatures would that, would that it would take a lot to do that. Is that not right than you could have them submit a. Affidavit or something certified copy of the statement of organization, uh, that would be a document that we, uh, somebody requests the one we do that quite often provide certified copies of, of filing, filings, I'm sorry, and just for curiosity, how long is the $500 threshold been in effect. To the best of my knowledge, it's always been $500 and so it would just go back to the inflation is there been any talk about raising that wouldn't affect this case, but with inflation that we talked about whether that what, what would it take to raise that to $1000? No, sir, I've not heard any conversations and it looks like this act came on the books in 1989 legislature to even change that. OK, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dismay, but I guess really I'm curious, so if there was one single one entity. That Was petitioning multiple government bodies, so. You know, creating petitions for multiple, so, you know, would have been white, Cleaver and Celine. I don't know why. I don't know what's going on, but, uh, why. Where does the threshold have to hit at each one of those, or, I mean, would they have to have a separate ballot committee for each one, or how, how does that work for someone that's It's not like there's a ballot committee for this, it's not a, you know, for the state, it's for each. County. Yes, registration though, I mean, the ethics commission is the filing office and so if somebody wanted to register for a statewide question, it would be with us if it was a countywide question it would be with us, a group, um, I don't know that the law specifically addresses it, but the, uh, the, the form says to list the issues that you're going to be advocating. So I, I think that you could list more than one issue and if you were interested in a county-wide matter that was in, you know, more than one county, I think you'd list them on there, but then the $500 threshold would just reply to your activities and, you know, it wouldn't be 500 per county, it would be 500 total. So, so on that, whatever you received today shows that they were, because they, they're each separate, right? I mean, they're, you're still only, I mean, you can't have one petition for both White County and Cleveland County, you have to have a petition for Wyde, a petition for Cleaver, and they could each and every one of those be different in some way, but still with the ran by the same organization. And I, I guess I'm just a little bit. I'm trying to see how what, what should we expect to see then on a filing, essentially, you know, we're, we're for paper ballots of some sort, and then when he, you know, a petition for. You know, that says this for Wyatt County petition says this for Cleveland, a petition what is that what it should look like, or? For one of these groups it's operating in multiple counties. Well, I think it, it's gonna change depending where in the process you are that if somebody was trying to get, uh, I'll just say wet dry, you know, they were just trying to get, there was a wet dry issue they were trying to get the ball rolling on in a particular county, I think they would, they would register for just wet dry Craighead County and then, and then, but I mean once if they got enough signatures and it qualified for the ballot, and then it, you know, then it got assigned a number. Name, then I, I think you would, you know, if somebody got involved at that point in time, I think it would be, uh, you know, that measure what's going to be presented to voters, you know, on, you know, election day, and you know, so the, you know, somebody's registering on one of the, you know, issue to casino, it would just be, you know, issue two, which has been presented to voters, you know, November. But what I'm trying to, what I don't understand is what is even expected to be. Presented because. The petition for Wyatt Cleburn, Faulkner, I don't know where all they were are all separate individual petitions that can impact the other petition. So whenever they report their expenses, for instance. Do they have to allocate them per county. For the work that was done there or can they hire the same person? Uh, from out of county that then works in Cele Faulkner, Cleburn, whatever. Uh, it may be, I don't, I'm just trying to understand what, what should we be looking for on the filing. If we were to review the filing, I mean, can I look and see who all and how they were paid for to work in. Like I said, why? Or Cleburn, or is it all just gonna be one big number and. You just kind of left to to try to discern on your own. Well, the law actually used to require a ballot question committee to report the names and amounts paid to canvassers and then that. Requirement got struck down so my understanding was unconstitutional. And so the, you know, that used to be required information on a report that would have been filed with us. Now, uh, maybe, maybe just generically signature gathering would be, uh, an entry or an expenditure, but it, it wouldn't be broken down by county and then I think you could, you know, if you, if you registered for more than one issue, um, the, You know, the Loud doesn't require that you, that you break your expenditures or your contributions down by issue, but we, we, we do have groups out there that are interested in more than one issue, and they will voluntarily separate those activities on the different reporting forms and so, you know, if, if you wanted it broken down, then, you know, uh, you know, perhaps the law could be changed to, you know, that you would report contributions, expenditures separately for each. Measure that you're, um, engaging in, you know, trying to get qualified or disqualified passenger feet, but I think, I think a group could register for more than one issue, and I think as long as it, as long as it reported it's. Well, I don't think it would have to report by issue. I think it was just, hey, we're we're registered for these three issues and here's the money we raised and here's the money we spent. They would have to List out the issues that they were engaging in. And in this case, since they're. Each one of them separate would be one they would need to list each county, I would assume. You know, I think the amended one that was filed today just said hand-counted paper ballots at the county level and it didn't, it didn't break it down by which counties or how many counties it was just hand hand-counted paper ballots at, at the county level. Do you remember the total amount of expenditures that were reported this morning? It was, um, and looking through the reports, I saw one that was, you know, the activity was 100,000 and then I think, you know, another one might have been 65,000, so it was, you know, six-figure, you know, the total was of the activities was, was at least 6 figures. One should those reports have been filed if they would have been filed timely. When, when You crossed the $500 threshold when the group crossed $500 threshold, which, uh, you know, I didn't, I didn't study them, but it certainly looked like that by gene there was more than $500 worth of activity. So, um, I'm prepared to say, you know, that, you know, they would have triggered engine and then Gene Monthly report would have been due July 15th. State of organization would have just been due 5 days after you cross that threshold go ahead. I'm just, but I'm not firm on when they cross the $500 threshold, but I do feel comfortable in saying it would certainly was, you know, by gene wouldn't have been any later than that. And do you, well I tell you what, I'm gonna let other members ask questions and I'll come back. Uh, so let's go. We got Senator Mark Johnson representing. Robin Langstrom and then represented Wooton. So Senator Johnson, you're up next, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sloan, thank you for your testimony, uh, Senator Rice and Senator Desma ask some of the things I was going to ask, but I want to get this thing about statewide or, or county by county clarified because I think this may be a future problem we need to clean up, uh. If let's, let's say I want to create a. Uh, organization to go out and get signatures to let's pick at something that's not controversial, say we want, we want to ban pit bulldogs in every county. I think it might be a little a few smiles out there, but, but it'll work for our purposes of illustration, uh, each individual county, uh. The BQC. Would not if they spent $500 even though they're hoping to do this in 75 counties that they couldn't spread that threshold over, uh, the total number of counties in the state they'd have to, it would be 500. Is that correct? That's how I would read the law, the, I guess the question is though, if you're trying to, trying to ban pit bulls in all 75 counties, is it going to be a constitutional amendment or You're going to have each county pass its own ordinance. Well, that was my point is that for whatever reason this, this group wanted it to be county by county. And, uh, if in that case, I'm wondering if if it's a way to, uh, I mean the issue is not as relevant as it is the county by county thing and I'm, and again, you're, you're commission and full disclosure, Mr. Chairman, my wife's a former member of the ethics commission. Uh, so I'm somewhat familiar. You're regulating the money spent to influence politics, not the political questions themselves and so the the thing that you would be looking at and correct me if I'm not seeing this correct is that someone spent money in Saline County or Cleburne County or Faulkner County or Conway County to enact a local ordinance in that county. That's the, the, regulatory purpose is that, am I reading that correctly? Per county. I don't know that it is per county. I think you've got a group out there that's saving or spending $500 and they're, uh, seeking to influence one or more county-wide measures and then I, I think the $500 it's not $500 per county. I think it would just be they're engaging in, they're trying to Expressly advocate the qualification, disqualification, passenger defeat, uh, have a question being presented to voters and then if they spend 500 receivers spend 500 to engage in that activity that they're gonna trigger registration and reporting. If they filed as the Saline County BQC in the Faulkner County BQC and the Cleburne County BQC, would that be 3 separate $500 thresholds. I think it would, yes, because it's 3 separate communities. So I guess going back to the first question I had, it's, it really, if it's statewide you could. Potentially create somewhat of a subterfuge or at least delay or disclosure by breaking it down county by county. Theoretically, of course. It'd be the same reports filed at the same office at the same time, but the threshold in each county. Yes, sir. OK. I, I'll, I'll quit now, Mr. Chairman, this is even more complicated than I thought it would be. Thank you, Mr. Sloan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative lunchroom. Thank you, Chairman Hammer. I'd have a motion at the proper time that we refer this. All right, I'll take your motion in a minute. Let's. Continue on, uh, Representative Wootton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sloan was the committee and may we was the committee that was in Faulkner County registered with your office and the one that was in Saline County, where they registered with your office? Sir, the only group that was registered with us was restore Election Integrity in Arkansas. It registered back in October 19th of 2023. And at that time, it indicated that it was gonna be expressly advocating the qualification, disqualification, passenger defeat of a constitutional amendment requiring handmarked ballots, and then that registration was amended today, uh, to speak in terms of County laws at the county level, so, you know, there, there, there is but one committee registered and then today was the first time that it indicated that it was going to be active at the county level, did they pay you $500 for each county or just $500 or I mean, I paid you, but have they collected? I mean, we, we've had testimony that $13,000 check was given to a motel in Conway. Now, have they reported other expenses to you? The, the reports came in this morning, um, looked at them briefly on the way out the door and, you know, there was, uh, I think one of them showed $100,000 of activity. One of them showed 6500 $65,000 worth of activity. So, you know, they have reported significant financial activity, but what that is and what the various entries were, I, I didn't study it at that level. So What, what is it, what do we have? We have two committees or we have 11 committee, committee, and they've been in existence since October of 23, and here it is, uh, October of 24, and they're just now reporting 67 days after they came into, after they registered, but again, the question would be when did they cross the $500 threshold because that's when they would have triggered reporting. Well, did they say that in the report to you when they crossed that $500 threshold. No, you would just look at the report and then, um, look at the dates for the contributions or the dates of the expenditures and just total them up till you got to 500 on money in or money out. So, What, what are they registered for then for Faulkner County or Saline County or statewide amendment. You I mean. Look at the statement, I can tell you. And give me just a second, please. RIA, which is restore Alex integrity in Arkansas, we work at the county level to encourage residents of the county. To exercise local control over their elections by advocating for paper ballots counted by hand in a manner that complies with Arkansas law. they didn't designated county, county it's at the So that leaves the impression that's statewide it's I mean would you assume that or how, how would you figure out if it was a do you care if it's a local versus a statewide amendment. The information reported wouldn't really change and so from our perspective, are they registered in reporting, uh, and then I, I don't think the law requires a separate registration and a separate report for each county, for each separate, uh. Ballot question, but that, you know, that would certainly bey's prerogative to make that be the law. So you would, you would just accept it as a fact that they had a committee and not worry about the county or the state level, and I'm just, I'm not saying that that's wrong. I'm just asking you. With the, with the $100,000 expenditure and whatever else and then a $13,000 expenditure that they had at Conway, what were they doing were they doing it for Faulkner or were they doing it for Celine, or were they doing it for Sebastian, or were they doing it for 75 counties. I mean, I think the voters have a right to know if, if they vote for it and they live in Saline County is they'd be voting to have paper ballot voting for their county. I mean, whatever the question was on their ballot. It could be a countywide question that's being presented to him or it could be a statewide question, but, you know, it's the, you know, it's, it's tied to the question that's being presented to the voters. But anyway, the threshold was $500. Well they've expended that. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. couple of quick questions and nobody else is on the board right now. Um, the report shows the source of giving, correct? contributions, you know, I looked at the front page and it's got a summary for contributions and there was information in that field and so I would assume that there was itemization on the following pages, but, uh, you know, I was just almost the last thought I had before I walked out the door was just to go see if there's anything yet to be posted and then lo and behold, there was. OK. And the penalty that is assessed or what's the punitive damage for reporting. It's being filed late The all the laws under the ethics Commission's jurisdiction carry the same penalties, um, and the commission enforces those laws civilly or administratively in the sanctions for a particular violation include the issuance of a public letter. Uh, and or the imposition of a fine range on fines is, um, 500 to $3500 the, there's a provision in the statement of organization BQC Statement Organization statute that says if one's filed late, it's subject to a late filing fee of not exceeding 50. $50 a day and then, um, the laws under our jurisdiction also carry, uh, criminal misdemeanor penalties, but we wouldn't enforce them criminally, that would be up to the prosecuting attorney. OK, Senator, uh. This me, Senator dismay. What, what did you say the name of the group that filed the reports was restore election integrity in Arkansas. All right. And then, so then there's another group, and then I get this is, um, I'm so, uh, you may have covered this and I'm just just, it's too much for me to comprehend, but AVII. is another group that was engaged in the petition. Signature process. Correct. I mean, they're advocating openly to sign the petition. Are you referring to the sheet that shows them standing? Well. Yeah, so that's my question if, if AVII is out gathering signatures or, you know, I guess, taking people to, you know, or pushing to, you know, to sign or to gather signatures for this. What, what constitutes, and I, I just don't know, a ballot committee. Like when do you have the $5000 threshold I get, but what kind of activity do you have to be engaged in? Well, it's expressly advocating the qualification, disqualification, passage or defeat, but if you look at the statute, it said qualification of ballot question. means any action or process, legal or otherwise, through which a ballot question obtains certification to be on the ballot at an election. So if you were circulating petitions, I think that that's, you're trying to get it qualified, you're taking actions to, to get it certified and so, uh, and, and so that, that's when I spoke earlier about kind of depends on where the process you are. I mean, there, there might not be a, a certified question yet and then you would just be, OK, well, we're, um, wet In a particular county and then, but then once you got it certified, it's like, hey, this is, uh, you, you know, gonna be an issue, whatever or ordinance number, whatever, but AVII, if you, if you just look at the website, you kind of look at what's here that they are talking about. There's some there's a group called Arkansas Voter. Integrity, I don't know if you're talking about our website, the commission. I'm looking at the, the organization's AVII, their website, and essentially they're advocating that people sign, you know, the petitions at one point, they did, uh, advocate for that. Would they, would they be required to sign up as a ballot? If they were receiving contributions in order to engage in that activity, then they're going to trigger filing a statement organization as a committee, but if it was, if it was, An individual, just a person living breathing person that was advocating it. They're not going to trigger registration, but they're going to trigger reporting at that same $500 threshold. And, and so you could have a business that was, uh, spending its own money. I mean, it didn't receive contributions. It just sold some goods or services and took the money out of the cash register and advocated the passage. They're going to have to, they don't have to report where their money came from, but they have to report where, where it went, what. What they spent. So if I rented 3 vans and I put on the side of those vans, AVII and it said sign the petition for paper ballots and I had a website that was directing people and encouraging people to do that and the cost of renting those vans or. Owning those vans or, you know, the, the plastic on the side or the vinyl, whatever exceeded $500 with that group need to register as a ballot. Committee. Where did you say the money came from? I'm sorry. I don't know. Yeah, they, they wouldn't necessarily have to register as a committee, but they would certainly have triggered reporting. The, the question on registration would be where they receiving contributions in order to engage in that activity? OK. Are you aware if AVII has reported in any way. I'm not aware of that entity. OK, I'm not because I know and just to make sure I'm following, that's a separate entity to the the restore election. The one you've mentioned earlier. That'd be my understanding. I think we need to know if I think we would need to know from Graham if they are registered and if they filed any reports and if you're not able to say that today, that's just information we'll have to get, we had, we had looked at the groups that were registered for hand. Counted paper ballots and so we went through, you know, there's, there's Quite a few that are currently active and so we've gone through and looked at the registration of all the currently active ones. and did not pick a group by that name up, but now that you have a name that we can look forward and be a lot easier to look and see, you know, instead of reviewing all registrations to see who was interested in hand counted paper ballots, just the search it by group name. That's a, that's a lot simpler task. OK, thank you. Just from my own Based on Senator Dismay's question, if somebody's out there as an individual, but they are doing a senator Dismay said. You know, with regards to. Leasing vans, purchasing vans, vinyl lettering vans, all that kind of stuff. Um, does that rise to the level of someone that would need to be filed with you and be reporting both income and expenses, uh, regardless where the income comes from one person who's just doing it out of their pocket or, uh, they've got several that are contributing to it. Would they need to Well, you, you become a committee. When you receive contributions. And so the You know, if, if it's, if it was just an individual that just got, got his paycheck on Friday and went and took out an ad in the newspaper, spend his own money, her own money. They're not gonna trigger registration as a committee because, and, and, and then the, you know, an individual spending his or her own money or just a business entity that's spending its own money, they don't have to report, register and show where that money came from. They just have to report their expenditures. How would you know that? Well, I mean, there's two separate forms and so I mean they would have used the form for an individual spending his or her own money, but you wouldn't know if they. If they they took contributions and just didn't report it, then, you know, the, the forms required to be filed under oath and so I mean the you were willing to lie under oath, you wouldn't know. I mean, you really don't You really don't know until somebody tells you, so you could know. I would agree. I mean, that's, is that fair? or? Yes, but I mean if if somebody did spend the money out of their own pocket, you know, they're, they didn't receive contributions and so there's, you know, there's nothing to report. There's nothing to report on the money inside because it was. Um, you know, it's your own money and then, you know, a lot of times on a, You know. Wet dry issue, the, the The liquor store that's already down at the county line. They're gonna be against the other county going wet and they're gonna spend their own money and, uh, nothing wrong with that. Right. Even if it goes above 500, there's nothing wrong with that. Not spending their own money, they have to report it, but they wouldn't, they wouldn't have to register as committee. They would have to report it then. Report the money spent, but there's there's, they wouldn't have to register as a committee and they wouldn't have to report money in. I guess that's what I'm getting at. If they don't register as a committee, if they don't. If they don't register, how would you ever know that somebody is doing that, that they violated the law because they went above the 500. Well, I mean, if they were hosting fundraisers or running, you know, soliciting contributions so you could you'd have that information that they, they are soliciting contributions, uh, but again, if, if you know, if they're. If they're gonna. Take money and then not tell about it, and, you know, I mean, if somebody's willing to. To lie under oath then, you know, you're you're stuck with their answer. All right, uh, Representative Wooton. I'm still, I'm still confused. Uh, following, uh, Senator Tim May's question and the comments by the chairman. We don't have any control over that then. I mean, it's they're on their honor. If I want to give 50 if they want to spend $500 or $1000 to influence a uh a uh a uh Corum Court or city council, they, they, they can do that. Well, when you start talking about influence in the Cornwall I'm talking about either either through advertising in the newspaper or whatever, but if they don't report it, even though it's a violation, you may not know about it. I think it's the point that we're questioning here. And I, I, I agree that we don't know what's going on in all 75 counties. But if there was a billboard that said vote for this particular issue or vote against this particular issue. I think the people on the other The other side, who's, you know, the other side of the issue are going to report that, hey, they've got a billboard on I-40 and advocating for the passage of this and they're not registered reporting and then, you know, if they, they filed a complaint, we would get that that a name this billboard paid for by I would like in the newspaper ad it would be on there, the paid for by language should be on there. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK, uh, we don't have any other questions at this time, so Graham, appreciate you being here might stick around a second if you don't mind. And then, uh, last person on the list is, uh, Clint Lancaster. Clint, you wanna come up, please? And then I'm gonna take your motion after that. And then public comment. And then members after that, we've got a, we got one other non-related matter to this subject shouldn't take long to deal with, but just, we got one other item to close out today. And Clint, uh, named the title for the record, if you would please you representing anybody, name is Clint Lancaster. I'm an attorney. Um, as I imagine, we'll get into shortly. I'm now the treasurer of REIA and its general counsel. OK, um, gonna swear you in, OK? Uh, do you solemnly swear and affirm testimony about to give me the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth of God. All right, thank you. Thanks for, uh, Senator Hammer, I, is it possible to have my colleague, uh, Michael Gelman joined me. He is an attorney in Wisconsin who's consulted with me and my law firm on this case. It, it, as long as it's relevant to the discussion today and you're comfortable come down, he's willing to submit himself to questions and be put under oath, that'd be fine, he has no intention to make statements, but, uh, he will if you ask him questions. Very good. Thank you. Also, Senator Hammer, I had some prepared remarks if I could read those if we can get him, uh, to the table and, uh, identified and sworn in. I'll recognize for comments and then we're gonna go to any questions if any members have questions. Good afternoon, sir. And if you would uh just uh name and title into that green mic for us, please, sir. My name is Mike Gelman. I'm an attorney from Wisconsin. Very good, sir. Would you raise your right hand, sir? We're gonna swear you in under oath if you would, please. You solemnly swear in a firm testimony about the be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, help you God. Thank you, sir. Have a seat. Welcome to Arkansas. Uh, all right, uh, first name base, OK, sir. OK, if you will, go ahead and, uh, whatever statement you want to read, go ahead. Sure, I would like to thank you again for permitting me to testify before the committee on the very important topics of self-legislation and secure elections. I would like to begin by assuring all members that the statements I make before this committee are under an affirmation to be truthful and honest. In that spirit, I need to clarify my previous testimony as upon reflection some of the statements I were not accurate, even though I believe they were when I made them. First, I either said or strongly alluded that the Arkansas voter integrity Initiative, a 501c4 entity was behind the county by county effort for paper ballots. I have since learned that it was not a VII behind the measures, but restore election integrity, Arkansas, a ballot question committee. In these reports that we filed this morning, AVII made in-kind contributions to REIA in the form of attorney's fees, and that was the basis for my confusion. Second, after further investigation, as Ms Justice testified a little while ago, she was not a paid ballot canvasser for REIA and when I said that or strongly alluded to that in the last state in the last testimony that was not accurate. With those clarifications made, I announced today that over this past weekend I joined REIA as treasurer and general counsel. REIA inadvertently failed to make timely reports regarding its contributions and expenditures to the Arkansas Ethics Commission when they became due. This is something that Representative Ray astutely recognized in the previous meeting. Reports required to be made. They were not timely made, and REIA as self-reported that to the ethics commission to by an email that I sent Mr. Sloane on Saturday. As of this morning, REIA's late reports have been submitted for filing. REIA understands that filing these reports will not absolve it of the responsibility it has for late for filing late, but I firmly believe that it is better to file them late rather than never. REIA continues, uh, anticipates continued advocacy for the Independence County measure that will make the ballot this November. I will ensure RAIA's, uh, reports are timely filed for October pre-election and Before it winds up in November. Perhaps you are considering stoning REIA before you do, REIA would like to bring in two other entities into the arena to make sure that the JPR gets all it can with the fewest stones possible. Starting with the group which calls itself Citizens for Safe Elections. This charming group of ballot blockers is or was running digital billboard ads in Independence County encouraged a no vote on the paper ballot ordinances. It is not registered as a BQC or a PAC. It has made no reporting of its contributions in-kind donations or expenditures. The second group of ballot question blockers is a more of an, is a more nefarious nature. My law firm and its client, Brian Norris, who is here today, possess information that clearly and unequivocal indicates that the Arkansas Association of Counties has been providing ongoing assistance to county clerks in the counties where the measure was submitted to be placed on the ballot. The, as it does so often, has been operating in the shadows as a conduit entity for county clerks who oppose this paper ballot measure. Their operations include litigation strategy, templates for clerks to use and conduct which was intended to delay or frustrate the placement of this measure on the ballot. However, the AAC has not registered as a BQC is not a PAC. It has not reported its contributions or expenditures. This entity, which is a conglomerate of lobbyists that receives public funds to operate. Provides no accountability for its actions. Please let that soak in for a moment. A group of lobbyists, which takes public funds to conduct operations is engaging in ballot question advocacy, spending public funds to defeat constitutional self-legislation at its most local level and has no accountability to this legislator, the ethics commissions, or the people whose tax dollars fund their missions. I hope you're as angry about that as I am. It is appalling that my tax dollars have been used against me because elected officials do not want paper ballots. It is more appalling that the AAC is doing it in total darkness. Of course, I realized that the AAC is a publicly funded but private corporation that is free to advocate for its members and not the people whose tax dollars pay their bills. That does not mean it should be allowed to do so in the dark. I strongly encourage the members of this committee to create legislation which prevents citizens' tax dollars from being weaponized by an entity like AAC to the taxpayer's detriment. Finally, at the last JPR meeting I attended, I heard from a number of legislators who desire to keep, who desire to create laws to keep people from out of state for meddling in our elections. That is a double-edged sword. While the legislature works to keep out left-wing liberals like George Soros from coming in and effectuating jungle primaries or ranked choice voting, it is also preventing the people from accessing the ballot to self-legislate. This county by county ballot measure was the product of local residents. John Bailey has been a longtime resident of Arkansas and headquarters is multinational publicly traded company BSR Real Estate Investment Trust about a block away from this very building. Colonel Conrad Reynolds is a decorated veteran and national security advisor with top secret security clearance. He's also the son of an Arkansas state trooper. I would encourage the JPR to, and I say this to let you know that it was a locally grown initiative and ask the body to work on a way to keep out of state middlers away while allowing Arkansans to access their ballot. Thank you again and I look forward to taking your questions. All right. Thank you, Senator Disney. Last time you're affiliated, you were, you were only affiliated with AVI. Now it full candor to you, sir. I did form the real estate or the, uh, the, the REIA ballot question committee at the request of its officers. Uh, but after I formed it, I took no other action with it, uh, to the best of my knowledge since I think Friday or Saturday. OK, yeah, because that's what I'd noticed on the, on October 19th, it was stamped as received that you were. Essentially they were housed in your office, is what it says. Well, they got their mail there. I mean, you know, you got 4 or 5 different people from, uh, living in various addresses across the state, it's just better that they send it to me where I know I can get, but you just weren't aware of what they were doing then. And no, I was not aware. I became aware, uh, after, uh, after we were here last time, there were a number of discussions with my client about, um, the reporting requirements. And so I realized at that time and we, we do not hide the ball that our reports were late. They should have been filed, um, Mr. Sloan was right. We the REIA uh crossed the threshold in June when a when a donor gave, uh, I believe $100,000. And then we subsequently took in more money, uh, all from the same donor and paid it out and we currently have a balance left that we intend to use to advocate in Independence County, you said something about in-kind legal work earlier, walk me through what that means. This is what I, you know, you know, I, Didn't really study campaign finance law in law school, but what I understand it to mean is that AVII paid my attorney's fees. And, and so when it paid those attorney's fees, it did that for the benefit of REIA. And so that then becomes an in-kind contribution and it is reported in our recent filings. When did that, so the first time that had, but you didn't know that you were working for. How is that possible? I mean, I'm Like you didn't, you were getting paid by AVII. Didn't know that REI was doing anything, but you were doing work for REI but no one told you you were doing work for REI because AVII was paying you. So is that the is that did I jump through all the little things correctly. You know, I'd never asked for who, uh, yes, I think you did, and I never asked for, um, the magic legal term or qui bono, who benefits? I never asked, hey, who benefits from this work? I mean, you know, I'm a very direct person, Senator Dismay. I, I don't care. About your problem until you pay me and then I care very deeply. And so what, what type of work were they asking you to do? So the work was was the the, the, the work that you were doing and getting paid for, you're doing it for AI but getting paid for by AVII. What, what was that work? So that work would eventually be lawsuits filed in 9 different counties. That, that's all you did. There was no other advising or anything else related to the petition gathering process. Yes, there was, so when we were considering a statewide ballot measure. Um, we, I started providing advice about how to do that and when it switched to a county, uh, a countywide one, I provided advice about how to do that. When were you doing when would y'all review and talk about doing the statewide? What's the date on that? It was in October of last year when we started and then promptly we're frustrated by the Attorney General's office tried to bring an original jurisdiction that we lost. I would advise that you need to retroactively amend your return or amend your filings back to October because that's when you were doing the work for REI but getting paid by A VII in the form of. In-kind contributions. I will look at that when I, I studied that and I. The question that I thought that I really focused on was, was I advocating it for it to be on the ballot at that time. And so, I mean, I'll look at that in And make a, make a decision. OK, but yeah, so I, from what I understand, when I jump through all the little hoops, and I understand it's complicated. Your work for REI, the in-kind portion of that. occurred in or about October. Well, it would have started occurring. Back when you filed the, you know, the, the, uh, ballot. What what what BQC. When you formed it, you were talking about it and doing work and knowingly doing work for REI at that time, because you, you filed the legal work for them and I, and I guess you just didn't charge them any more than $500 to do the filing. I don't remember sitting here today what I charged in October of last year. I know that I focused on this drafting, say, a constitutional amendment constitute advocacy for it to be on the ballot. I, I don't know that it does. Uh, I will have to ponder that and, and try to sort that out, but that's what the standard I looked at was, was, was I advocating for it to be on the ballot? OK. All right, thank you. Representative Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Lancaster, for your testimony, um, and certainly appreciate the corrective action that, um, your group has taken on that. I had just have a couple of quick questions, um, mainly going back to the canvasser issue. So, we, we've now had 3 different notaries, either swear or affirm, uh, that the addresses of the petition gatherers on the petitions were not redacted at the time that they notarized them. But then we had. Two individuals, uh, Ms Justice and Ms. Johnson swear a firm that they were redacted, or sorry, that they did not redact them. Uh, and they were the ones that turned them in. So We, the question is still left unanswered in all of this is, who, who made those changes to the forms. Representative Ray, the only way I know that is what my client told me, and it goes back to the attorney-client privilege doctrine. I have not been authorized. It's not been waived. OK. So you're not going to answer that, that question, but you do know the answer. I can't answer that question, um, and keep a law license. I understand. So let me ask it a different way, uh, did you instruct anyone that it was permissible? To Um, redact the addresses on those forms. What I told to my client is covered by the attorney-client privilege doctrine. OK. Um, OK. My next question is. Are you familiar with the Arkansas statute as it pertains to altering uh alteration of a signature on a petition or canvass or affidavit after notarization. Could you tell me which statute you're referring to specifically? Arkansas code 7-9-103. C2. 13 C 2. Let me pull that up. It's not in the one that I had. I'm, I'm vaguely familiar with it. I see this is an exhibit number that may be, is this, I don't know if this is in the packet or not. It's in the packet, I think it's if you want to look at some of those C6. I'll read it. It states that a person acting as a canvasser, notary, sponsor, or agent of a sponsor commits a class A misdemeanor if the person, quote, prints a name, address, or birth date other than his or her own on a petition unless the signer requires assistance. Due to disability. So, I, I would just hope that you're not advising people that you can, that that is acceptable. Um, when I think the law is pretty clear that it's not for us. Let me interrupt members, I must say it's 96. That was from the last me. I'm working off my set of notes from last time, but I think it's in your pack. What's the number is on the back of D6. OK, thank you. Go ahead, sorry. So I, I think that that's a question about the interpretation of the law when I have read this statute, There's a When I read this statute, I, uh, I don't see, I, I see this as pertaining to the names of the people who sign. Like, in other words, not the canvasser, but the person who signs the petition. That's where your ballot, your, your petition fraud comes in is when you're putting down names of people and signatures who didn't sign, OK, who don't exist and things of that nature, not when you're correcting. Something else that the canvasser did. I don't think that applies. But that's a, well, there are. There are laws pertaining to who is eligible to be a paid canvasser, but well, I know you have your own opinions about that. Um, so I know you can't share anything that you discussed with your client, uh, respect that. Did you yourself. Make reactions to any of these petition forms? No. OK. Um, and then my last question is just about, I know you retracted some of your statements from your previous testimony, but in, in the previous meeting, but it Reflecting on what you said the last time you were here, you made a very specific point to bring up Ms. Laurie Justice in your testimony, and you, you stated that she was a paid canvasser and you also sort of went on to say that your role was just to advise, uh, legally to the group, um, pushing the issue. And so, I'm kind of confused as to why you were so certain. That you, out of all the people involved in this effort, you chose her to specifically state that she was a paid canvasser and not, not anybody else. Why, why did you do that? Well, at the time I, I made the statement, I was under the impression that she was, um, after the last JPR meeting, I sat down with my client and found out that that was not the case. And so that's why I've retracted that statement and I'll take this opportunity to apologize to Ms Justice for. The incorrect statement. OK. Uh, all right, that, that concludes my questions. Thank you. You're, you're wearing two hats here today. One is treasure and one is attorney. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So you're not an attorney when I ask you this question as treasurer, were you privileged to stay in conversations as treasurer that would reveal who it is that changed the, the, uh, addresses on the forms as a treasurer. No, sir, not as a treasure. OK. However, I, I, I possess. The reports and I, I can discuss anything you would like to discuss about them. We were going to be very open and forthcoming. You talk about the signature sheet. I'm talking about the, uh, the, the filings that we made with the ethics commission. Our reporting expenditures and contributions. I got, I got 3 in the queue, so I'm gonna go, uh, in the order Representative Wooton, Represented Beatty, and then Senator Dismay. So, uh, Representative Wooton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lancaster, do you know who wrote the $13,000 check to, uh, The two Hotel, motel, whatever and uh home in uh Conway. Yes, sir, I do. Can you reveal that in my role as treasurer for the REIA, the person who signed that check was Colonel Conrad Reynolds from a bank account in the name of REIA. Who, which came first? Is it AAI or Is that what's the initials? OK. Did it come first or did REIA come first? Are, are you, to make sure I'm clear, are you speaking about the time it was formed? Like when it come into existence you know, at this point, like I said, the last time, this is a mess, and then the country that's pretty bad. Now, which one of them is not with the chicken and egg, who, which one of them was that they meet and talk first. I don't care whether it was with the state or who, who met and who started the discussion. Well we've learned that it's involved in independence County. And then while ago someone else referred to the fact it's in 9 counties. And Mr. Sloan only has 11 report or two reports, but which one came first? Who is responsible For you And your actions. I'm not 100% sure I understand your question. Are you asking who directed me to do the legal work? Well, you can put it that way, or who elected you treasurer, but in, and what I'm trying to get to is which one of these organizations was established first. Well, AVII was formed first and with the Secretary of State's office and later on as it decided to, uh, as, as the members decided to go out and do, uh, Advocacy for a ballot position. I was like, hey, you got to be a BQC, you know, but you don't have to report until you take in over 500 bucks. So the BQC was then formed and then it in June, I mean, it opened a bank account in January and I provided, that was not the threshold reporting requirement. It was only $100. But we still reported that to the ethics commission out of an abundance of caution along with a number of reports showing no activity until the BQC. Restore election integrity in Arkansas. So we, uh, we filed all those reports. They, they're documented, they're itemized, uh, we have itemized expenditures. There's only a few unatomized expenditures that I could not account for, but I believe them to be fuel, and that was marked on the actual report itself. Um, the totals are there of where we're at and what we've done. So, restore. Election integrity was the first committee. Is that what you're saying ballot question committee that we formed. So the other one's not a valid committee. The they paid money to REA or to the other committee for your salary. Is that right? That's what you said earlier. AVII my legal bills, and it did so when I discovered that it was doing so for the benefit of REIA I properly reported that as an in-kind contribution. to pardon me for my ignorance, but it sounds like a subsrifuge all the way around at the expense of the people of the state of Arkansas. They don't know who to look to and the ethics commission didn't know till this morning at 9 o'clock and you knew y'all had to appear here today. Well, uh, Representative Wooten, I'll tell you that I spent my entire weekend working on these reports so that they could be filed before this testimony and so that I could answer questions about it if you have any. I have questions. I mean, I just, uh, you still haven't made it clear which one of these two committees was established first. Did they pay your legal bills before They restore the committee was formed or did they pay it afterwards and has that been reported? So to be clear, AVII is not a committee. It's an ink, it's a corporation. OK. So the only committee report the paying yourself paying your legal fees. Yes, they did not timely, but they're reported. They reported it and it's contained in the reports. Along with, uh, I think somebody mentioned 3 vans. Those 3 vans are leased to REIA under a legal contract. Who paid for them, REA? You know, I was a little bit, uh, speculative too much last time. I don't know for sure, so I'm just going to tell you I don't know. I would be guessing who paid for those. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, Clint, you're treasure for REIA or AVIIIII. OK, and your attorney for? Both. Where you pay legal fees, were, were you a registered lobbyist for AVII? Yes, I was. That was not a very successful gig for me, OK, um, so your attorney fees though were paid for lobbying services or for, um, For services other than that. Both, both. OK. All right, um, Representative Beatty. over here. Oh, OK, you're right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my question is, we've heard your testimony about clients and attorney-client relationship. Have you provided any records, um, to this committee that specifically spell out who your client is and the date that that relationship began. I have not provided any such records, no. Can you provide those records to us? I do think that would be covered by the attorney-client privilege doctrine. So because it revolve involves a statement from my client and it's a very simple statement, you know, will you represent me in this? But without having a waiver, I, I don't think I can. OK, so I, I mean, I would, I would think that just to back up. Your statements here on the record that there is an attorney-client relationship between these entities because they're, there seem to be multiple entities that are out here that you're kind of asserting an attorney-client privilege to that there would be some supporting document, uh, an engagement letter or something along those lines, uh, that would cover that relationship. Um, so I, I would like for you to provide that after you think about it further and reflect on that, uh, if, if you see fit to provide those to the committee. And then a follow up, we talked about some of the monies that have been expended for other issues, uh, as treasurer, can you disclose the amount of money that has been paid to you for legal, legal fees. I can't. It's on the reports. I can look it up if you would like for me to, and I, I don't have the report in front of me I'll look it up and I'll tell you exactly what was reported, if you will give me a brief moment. So in August, AVII paid my law firm $31,983. Bringing their total contribution up to date to be 37,818. Uh, I will check that was our busiest month with a number of lawsuits getting filed. Let me check September for you, sir. Uh, in September of 2024, our report reflects that we, by firm was paid an additional $20,230 bringing the total, uh, cumulative total from this contributor to 58,000 $48. Uh, thank you, sir, for that information. And then just a, a, a couple of other questions. Uh. Going back to the affidavits. I'm not gonna say redacted affidavits. I'm gonna say altered documents because that's what it, it really is. There was not a reaction. It was an altered document. Uh, had you, had you seen those, those documents prior to your, um, Are given any advice prior to that attorney-client relationship taking place. No, no, I, I didn't give any advice except on, on that matter, except in my capacity as an attorney. So in your capacity as an attorney, how would, how do you correct? Incorrect information on an affidavit. Do you just scratch it out, put anything you want in there and submit the document as original or what steps do you take to make certain that the information that is being provided on official documents that are signed by the notary, uh, for any matter. How do you, how do you make certain that, that you make corrections on those documents. So, uh, a petition sheet is kind of a unique form of affidavit that, you know, lawyers like me don't normally use and the fact at times when you're getting a sworn statement, um, what I would normally do if it was a traditional affidavit is bring back a, uh, an amended affidavit. Much like I said today, correcting the things that I, that were not accurate. Um, in this situation, you know, I don't know. As far as a petition page. My understanding of the law is that there was nothing done illegal or improper. So as an attorney and an officer of the court, any sworn official document that's submitted to a governmental entity, uh, if there are alterations and, and scratch outs and mark outs. I mean, you still don't think there's any, any issue with that? No, I, I don't, because. It's not completely uncommon to see somebody take a line through something that's typed in an affidavit and handwrite their statement. In fact, there's a number of judges that like to do that with court orders. And so I don't see that as being nefarious given the fact that the notary is only validating the signer's identity and nothing else. So I, I think, I think that, uh, there's nothing improper that's occurred here. All right, well I appreciate your opinion. Senator Dispa. All right, so now when did you start working for REI? That you, that you, that you, when did you become aware that you were working for AEA? I would say this past week, week. All right. And so, and then you're, you're not an attorney for REI, you're a treasurer both the treasurer and an attorney. You're the treasurer filing, I'm listed as a treasurer and general counsel. And so here's my question and you've you've you've said that you've got client turing privilege, right? Yes, on some matters, yes. And so, but, but this, what this is related to is slowly or solely dealing with REI. The, the question is, is who changed the documents, which is only related to REI. It cannot in any way, because they're two separate entities and have to be separate entities. A A VII, right? I agree they're separate entities. That's what you're asking. So how do you, but you didn't even know that you had REI as a client until someone told you later on that you had them as a client. So how do you have a client attorney privilege on a conversation. About the signatures. When it has nothing to do with AVII, the one that you thought that you had a client attorney privilege with. The entity. Well, I don't think if I'm, if I'm thinking of this correctly, nothing to do with the affidavits or their, uh, the, the alleged alterations or redactions, whatever you want to call them. Uh, I never learned anything of that from my role with REIA as as general counsel or especially treasurer. Well, AVII should have never had possession. Of those documents because they couldn't have belonged to them because they belong to the ballot questioning committee, not AVII, who could not do anything like that. You know, that's a, that's a fine technicality that's not a technicality, it has to be a technicality because if they're not separate, then someone. And I, I don't think anyone's intentionally trying. I want to back up and just say something very quickly and y'all can chat if you need to while I'm speaking and that's perfectly fine. But my, my question, I mean, I don't think any of the members up here are trying to prevent a particular county from having paper ballots. If, if you all want to legally obtain signatures in the county as a whole wants to vote on it, and that's the direction they want to go, then that's perfectly fine. Even some of us here voted to allow that to happen in legislation. I think, and, and so I just, for a lot of people that are here that are listening, trying to figure out what's going on, the question is, I think really the irony of the group advocating for paper ballots because they are more, they, they have greater integrity. Then the electronic. Altering the documents after being notarized to submit to get what they want. I mean, it just really speaks to. That's, that's a problem. Right? I mean, the, the same group that wants paper ballots is OK with altering. Notarized documents before submission. I'm assuming that we have to notarize these paper ballots whenever they're submitted. So, just as a background, it's for people that may be trying to pay attention to what's going on here. It isn't so much about Paper ballots in the county is it's what your organization or whichever organization it is got to where it is, or, you know, got these things before us even. So REI, the way that I understand the law has to be completely separate and apart from AVII. They do two separate things. They, there can't be a co-mingling. So AVII should have never had the privilege to review or touch or, or see these ballot initiatives or the signatures. And so I'm asking you, so you couldn't have represented the entity. That, that you had a conversation with about those. My question is. Since you didn't, I mean, how, how is that protected by attorney-client privilege. Your conversation about documents that didn't belong to this other client. How is that protected? You didn't even know you represented REI. Well, Senator, I think that you're overlooking the fact that AVII acted as a volunteer for REIA. But I mean, I'm looking at it in AVI. You just told me that the vans that are rented. We rented for REI, but they're plastered with plastered with a VII. It it's all very hard to, but our EI paid for the vans. The AVI I used. According just to what's on the vans. The vans are owned by AVII and they were leased to REIA. Oh, I, I didn't catch that initial part. They're owned by AVII and then rented to REI. I, I just caught that there, there was a legal contract to rent the vans, not who they're originating entity was that owns the vans. OK. I'm also, uh, that's listed on the expenditure reports as an in-kind contribution that they are now, right, yeah, OK. But so you didn't represent REI, but we're gonna go ahead and say that we've got attorney-client privilege for an entity that you didn't represent until just a little bit ago. There's no way that I can To answer that question on REIA's behalf and not violate the attorney-client privilege I owe to AVII. So I, I know that that's whenever y'all were having this conversation, it was clearly that I'm AVII having a conversation about REI, but we don't talk about what was happen. We have, you have privilege to not speak about this anymore. Anyone else. I, what you're saying doesn't make sense, but I understand there's a lot of, I mean, we jumped through all the hoops a minute ago to kind of backtrace to where we are. I mean, you, you're in a very complex pretzel. Um, In a, in a, in a way, I appreciate it because I think you're trying to navigate it the best you can, but there, it just leaves holes in almost every way we try to have a conversation. I mean, I guess I would say I don't really know in some ways what we're doing because the, the question is. Who changed the documents? You've said twice now that you're not willing to say. OK. I would just, that, that's all I want to know. Question, um, when you were here last time, The client privilege. Attorney privilege that you invoked not to answer questions last time you were here. Were you here and did you make that statement as the attorney for REIA? No, because I was not involved at that level with REIA at that time. So last time you were making your attorney-client privilege as AVI. AI and any of the other clients that I had discussions with. So if last month we would have asked you. About who altered the documents. From a REIA perspective, you would have been able to answer the question then, because you stated a second ago that you're not the attorney or you weren't aware that you were their attorney until last week. Is that correct? So I was not aware that I was providing legal services for the benefit of REIA but I officially became their attorney over the weekend. OK, um, and if, and I appreciate, you know, Senator Disban, it is a complex situation. I will say that you should have been there when we looked into Hunter Biden's finances because it was an equally complex situation as well. All right, let's go to Representative V is next up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So how many people are on the committee? On your committee. The committee one, not the Inc, but the committee. How many people? Yeah. I believe 5 total, but I'm, I'm not looking at that record, but I believe 5. And is that for anybody to be able to see? Yes, ma'am. I can tell you who the members are now my next question is, are you a lawyer for all of those people on that board? On that I think I am, yes. How many people are on your ink board? I, I don't know that information, but you, you just said you're their lawyer. I don't know if maybe that's possible, but there's not been a problem with the ink board as you can kind of glean. I, I become involved when there are problems. No, I. I'll refrain from saying what I want to say. Um, So you, you have, they have, they all have client lawyer privilege with you is what you're saying. I've consulted with all of them in a legal capacity. And they've all paid you personally. Well, again, without getting into how my firm gets paid, it doesn't require a payment for attorney-client privilege to attach. That's interesting. I have been compensated for my services. And you can't tell us who compensated you for your service. Well, I, so I feel like your question is rather broad at the moment it was for the board, who compensated you for the board for the BQC or the, or the ink? The one that's the ink. I was compensated by AVII compensated them, who gave them the money to pay you. So AVII is a 501c4 organization and it does not have to disclose its donors. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beatty. Back over here. Uh, since we have you here, I, I, I feel like it's a little information I'd like to know in your capacity as treasurer. For the entity that you represent and said you're treasurer. My question is, have any moneys been expended, uh, for a lawsuits against the Republican Party of Arkansas, particularly, uh, Luther Sauder and, and, and, and that group. You mean my wife's lawsuit? Um, yes, uh, none of the money from REIA has been distributed as an expenditure of any kind to that, to that particular matter. OK. Thank you. To uh, Represent Wooton. No, no, no, sorry, Senator Dismay, Representative Wootton, light backup, please. I got the wrong order. All right, Senator Dismay, and actually, I'm gonna go with Senator Rice and Representative Wooton will kind of wrap it up. You had me intrigued with your, uh, this being comparable to Biden's finances. I'm not sure that's the best analogy or one I would want to use again, but, uh, I do appreciate you making it, uh, because I do feel like it's fairly complex with what we're talking about here, and I don't think it needed to be complex. I think that trying to figure out how to Back door fix something is what's made things complex. So, and again, I'm not sure that anyone's doing it on purpose. I'm just saying, you know, lack of knowledge sometimes happens and you're trying to fix a lack of knowledge and rather than just kind of acknowledging that. We made a mistake, that's fine. And so, but again, for me, it's all central to this changing. Of the notarized documents and I think we do have a very different opinion on if that's the right or wrong thing to do. And that's, I think especially in the context of what we're talking about this leading to, it's even that much more important and I would hate for any group to think that documents could be changed after submission or just prior to submission without the knowledge of everyone that was involved in the creation of those documents. So my, my question is, but. You're now a treasurer and an attorney for an entity. And let's just say that the ethics commission wants to bring y'all forward or some other entity does and just wants to ask, who changed the documents? You, you now have an obligation, you've signed on as treasurer. So you're, you're tied into the bunch. You're no longer just a, you know, you no longer just have a client attorney privilege. You're, you're part of the team. So my question is, is at what point do you disclose that? Because I, I think, you know, if I'm on a team, and I know that, There is there only one person that knows the answer to this question? I don't, I don't know. I, I don't think so. OK. Could you direct me and who, who all, so we, we, I think we, we said that Conrad Reynolds knows who else would know? In your, in your position as treasurers, you've had these conversations because clearly you wouldn't be a part of a, a group that would You know, not follow your advice or whatever it may be. Who else would know about the chain, the changing of the. Documents. So my capacity is in RAIA is primarily financial and campaign finance. So, I'm, you know, that's not true. You said, you said very, very much otherwise earlier today you said that you were paid in kind from AVII for the lawsuits and paid substantial amounts of money. I can, I've just glanced, but it's not. Minimal amounts of, at least I don't know, I'm not, again, I'm not an attorney. I don't know how much y'all get paid, but it's a lot. Uh, in my opinion, so you, you, that was just for financial. Because you just said. Your responsibilities with REI or predominantly financial. For as in my capacity as treasurer, yes. So you're not some part of some group, there's no overall votes, minutes, discussion, this just operates how as an entity. Well, a BQC is not required to maintain the formalities of an ink. So there does not have to be meetings. There does not have to be minutes, uh, no quarterly board meetings. Uh, it functions just simply as a reporting entity and my role with them is now to report their finances and them through the campaign finance problem that is created prior to that it was to handle the lawsuits in the counties and all the other things that gone along with that and so you, you've pivoted now to where we're predominantly treasurer, even though you weren't predominantly treasurer, you just didn't happen to know what you were doing at the time or who you were working for. It's very, very complex, and I don't really understand. I guess you can assert that privilege all day long. It doesn't make sense to me. What difference does it make? You don't even think it was the wrong thing to do. And you know that more than one person knows about it evidently, but yet we say, I don't understand the. And now you have a, a responsibility as treasurer as part of an organization you would think you would want to be a pardon of an organization that doesn't change documents because what if that happened to you? I mean, again, I do not think that there's anything nefarious about changing an address. I mean, obviously, we disagree on that, uh, but yeah, you know, yeah, so what I would ask you invoking the privilege? What difference does it make? I would pause it to you this way. I learned the information in my capacity as an attorney regardless of who I was representing and I owe that person when I have an attorney-client relationship with that entity and that individual did not release you of that obligation after the last meeting's testimony. No, sir? They said we don't want anyone else to know about this. You stand firm. Did you have a conversation about it. We can't say that because you've got client attorney privilege. I wouldn't answer that question if I were you, there was a conversation, the contents of which I cannot divulge, but there, there's been no nefarious like, oh my gosh, Senator Dismay asked such difficult questions. Clint, don't, don't waive attorney-client privilege because we don't want him to know. That's not the case at all. why are we why? OK, because it's just not been waived. I, I can't, I can't waive it for him. One person knows about something, but two people know about something or 3 people know it, we don't know how many people know. And you're just saying, and we don't even think it's illegal, the person that did it doesn't think it's illegal. No one thinks it's any big deal whatsoever on the other side of the, you know, argument, you know, opposed from, you know, what I believe to be the case. But no one is willing to disclose it either. At least not me. OK, thank you. Go ahead center rush. Sitting here listening to this, I didn't have as much problem as I did long ago that I understood you to say. That you really don't know who all your clients are. And if somebody's uncle or aunt or grandmother knows the answer to the question. We want to know who changed the documents. That it's not a part of the organization. You don't know, but you're OK with them saying they've got Attorney-client privilege with you. I'm, I'm OK I hear you saying. Anybody just tell them, you know, Clint Lancaster, and you've got attorney-client proof. I'm glad it doesn't work that way. Uh, I think that if that was the impression I left upon you, Senator, I, I left that too broad. Uh, what I am saying is, is that the board members of ABII and the directors of R. IIA have all consulted with me, both in their capacity as officers of those companies and personally as well. And those should be identified identities that you know who they are, maybe you can't recite them right here today. Well, I don't, I don't need to know. I'm just saying that's an entity. That you have a relationship with, but what I, what I gleaned a while ago, you said something that you, you didn't know who all was in some of these organizations, and I just don't want people using that for an excuse. Because it's like saying I'm gonna sue you. I'm gonna get me an attorney and sue you. They didn't, they didn't sued you to like do it, but I don't want them claiming privilege if they're not part of the organization you're representing, or at least claiming your privilege. I agreed them any type of consultation or formed a relationship, they should not be able to say I have attorney-client privilege with Clint. I just want you to be clear in your speech where they know that. So that's the reason for my question. Thank you. Yes, sir. I will be happy to disclose Directors of the ballot question committee. Representative Ray, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um. I just Real quickly, for Mr. Gable, is it, is he Mr. Gable? Is that my name is Mike Gableman, G A B L E M A. Gableman. I'm sorry, sorry about that. OK. So, I'm just curious, what, what is your role here? Well, thank you, Representative. Uh, my role is someone who's very, very concerned about election integrity and security. I, after I left the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I served for one term, a 10-year term, and I did not choose to run for re-election. Uh, not too long after I did not run, uh, the Wisconsin Assembly hired me to investigate the 2020 election in our state. Uh, Mr. Lancaster was a member of President Trump's legal team in Wisconsin. And in that capacity I became familiar with him, and I hired Mr. Lancaster to uh work on my investigation. Um, I'm, I'm down here because I'm very concerned about what appears representative, uh, to be a weaponization of the legitimate political purpose of a committee like this. I've looked through the description of your committee as it appears on the Arkansas legislature, uh, website, and it has broad power, but nowhere does it say contrary to your opening statement. That it should serve as an investigative arm of law enforcement. You have the power, you know better than I, to refer questions to different committees. But nowhere in your opening statement, Representative, you mentioned you are looking into criminal laws that may have been violated. You use the word fraud and you name the classy felony. Um, That does not seem to be a legitimate exercise of political oversight of agencies that appears to be a witch hunt in order to intimidate the supporters of paper ballots. You, I one of the senator there dismaying Senator dismaying mentioned the word irony. Your great state, and I do mean that this is a great state and I have great respect for all public servants. Reg not populace. The people rule. Exhibit C2 I see a van with volunteers. I don't know if they're volunteered or they're paid. But what a wonderful attempt for the people to rule themselves and what an odd use of a legislative committee's time to attempt to investigate criminal activity that it views as criminal, even at your first hearing, which I watched every minute of it, 2 or 3 hours, something like that. If you were looking into the issues that need to be addressed by future legislation, which you neglected from your opening statement. I know the chairman the chairman made sporadic comments during the hearing about the legislative oversight process, which is the actual function of this committee according to its charge. You had all that information at the end of the first hearing. Now it seems to be a question of trying to get a lawyer to violate his oath and to subject themselves to the penalties of whatever regulatory body regulates lawyers in this state. Uh, and also to betray his client's confidence all in an effort to find out the identities of people who may have done something that it's debatable whether or not even it wasn't, if it wasn't infraction, that just seems to be such a perversion of the legitimate legislative process as someone who devoted 30 years of his career, I was either a prosecutor or a trial court judge or a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I find that grotesque and that's why I'm here. I appreciate your opinion on the Arkansas legislative process. We do make the laws in the state, many of them pertaining to the initiative process and so if they're not working as the legislature intended, then we need to make revisions to those laws and subsequent legislative sessions, and that is what we're doing today has nothing to do with what I'm not going to debate it with you, but what my, I will move on to my next question, which is, Do you know who altered the petition forms. If I did, I certainly wouldn't tell you. OK. All right. Last question, are you practiced, are you licensed to practice law in Arkansas? I am not. OK. That's all my questions. Thank you. Representative Wootton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna make a fool of myself, but Mr. Kim, I'm gonna tell you one thing, we don't need somebody from Wisconsin coming down here and running his mouth, and I don't care a few minutes just Supreme Court justices a US Supreme Court. We don't need to hear from that. And number one, you're not licensed and you can sit there and smirk and smile all you want, but uh, Representative Ray ask you the question I was going to ask you. Do you know? Who Gave the instructions to alter the petitions. There is a lot in your statement followed by a question and your main, uh, issue of question to my question my question to you, my question to you, Mr. Chairman, the witness is not answering the proceeding and it is a weaponization recognize your point of order. Stop. Hear your point of order. Hang on. And it didn't. My point of order is he's badgering a witness who's asking a question that is a member of this committee. My second point of order is he is not staying on the topic of the questions that he is being asked. Thank you. I recognize that point of order and here's what we're going to do Representative Wooten, would you please ask your question and then I will ask you, Mr. Cableman, just simply to answer the question and then we're going to move on. Representative Wooten, do you know who is at fault for Altering the documents that are before us that we're looking into. If I did, I wouldn't tell you. And I, and I can't accept that. Because generally when somebody uses that phrase, they know who did it. So you, you can be prepared to be involved in a court case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving on to representative Wooldridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, my question is for Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, sir, um. I'd like for you to educate me temporary, I guess. A little bit on this ballot initiative, so this initiative was formed out of an abundance of transparency in the voting process, correct? Initially, yes, we, it was, the thought was it was better to form and not need to report, then, uh, need to report and not have been formed. It just got off the train tracks at some point. And to follow up on Senator Dismay's point, and I agree with him, whatever a local community votes to do, chooses to do, wants to do, I'm great with that. I guess the irony, I agree with him. One is a transparency initiative is not been very transparent in this process and I guess my question for you, sir, have you asked your client to waive privilege in this case so you can clear this up? No, I have not. Is that something you'd be willing to do? I'm sure I'll ask. I, I don't know what the answer will be, but, uh, you know, there's, if you're trying to cut down a tree here with a toothbrush, there's an easier way to do this. OK, follow up, Mr. Chair. Um, when you said a while ago, the, the people that you represent on the boards, on the, um, commission, how many folks do we think that we're dealing with here? Do you have a rough number? I have their number. I do have a rough number and I have their names. OK. What's the number of people? I believe it to be 5. OK. Are you willing to ask all five of them to waive privilege, uh, probably not, no. OK. Would, would one person be able to waive privilege and you'd be able to divulge that on behalf of the organization? That's possible. Thank you, sir. Senator Clark, thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, especially since I'm not a member of the committee. The, uh, Mr. Gelman. The Uh, first I wanna tell you that I appreciate your work and Mr. Lancaster's work in Wisconsin. Uh, On election issues, I think it's very important work. Uh, and I say that sincerely, uh, I will say that. Uh, I should divulge that is a constituent and also has represented me pro bono. has been nothing but good to me. And I'm a former chair of this committee. Uh, and if you watched every minute of the last meeting, you know, I didn't say a word, and you've been here today, so you know I haven't said a word. The 135 legislators here in Arkansas, and I can't speak to every one of their motives in a chair having us. Uh, still a chair and been a chair of this committee does not control, uh, what anybody's motives are or the questions that they ask. But if I had ever seen. That this was, and I should also divulge that I ran, I believe 5 paper ballot. Bills, but somewhere in that vicinity for, uh, Clint and Jennifer. Uh, so I'm not unfriendly. Uh, but if I'd ever seen that this. Purpose of these meetings was against paper ballot folks. I would have already spoken up. Uh, I have seen other meetings and you can go back and watch them where we have had irregular irregularities and gathering petitions, etc. they've been just as pointed, uh, and nobody had anything against those people who were gathering those and so as much as I respect you, that seemed more like a political statement, and, uh, What brought you to that opinion? What brought me to the opinion I appreciate. I appreciate the good faith, uh. question And I I'm responding in good faith. There's nothing in it for me personally to be here. OK. I, I drove down the other day. I drove on my own. I'm not asking anybody to pay for my gasoline or any hotel room or anything. No one's gonna do that. I'm really concerned. When I see The legitimate legislative Purpose Of under the color of law we are in this beautiful building we are sitting down in this pit and it's a good reminder to me because for 20 years I was on the upper table, and now here I am down here. I'm concerned. Because. It seems to me that that there are certain members of this committee, certain powerful members of the committee who are bearing in on trying to find a very particular instance of what they view as criminal misconduct. Now, I. Jail is a bad place to be. Nobody wants to go there. You start raising the specter of criminal liability of someone being put in. Handcuffs and going into a jail cell. My God, that besides taking somebody's life, that's the 2nd most ultimate power in the most widely used one to our criminal justice system, deprivation of liberty. And when I see that exercised under the the color, the pretense, I think. Of gee, we want to see what needs to be adjusted in our legislation so that we can fulfill the purpose of what is set out at our official website as the purpose of this committee, which is to investigate and refer matters to other committees and to other governmental agencies for the purpose of legislation, but I see. I, I, frankly, the words that came to mind and what motivated me to drive down here on Saturday night and Sunday morning. It's a witch hunt and, and it's a witch hunt based, and I mean that because the people who were persecuted and killed during the witch trials. We forget that. Actual people were tortured to death under the color of law. For a piece, a violation of a crime that did not exist. And I see something very similar happened happening here. And, and the other thing that's very clear for me from observing this committee is you are all smart people. You are all very smart people, so it's not like you're kind of wandering into this and just picking out random phrases of criminal liability in jail and a maximum potential jail penalties and unclass misdemeanors and class C felony. And I say to myself, my God, this is so divorced. From the legitimate exercise of legislative power, and I mean that in several ways, including the the Constitutional separation of powers, the prosecution. Of a crime is for the executive branch of government. It is not for the legislator. The legislator, legislatures to legislate. It's for the, the prosecuting attorney. To work with sworn law enforcement officers to develop grounds if there was a violation of the criminal law. And it seems eminently clear to me. From your first witnesses who I think were too uh notaries public. At the first hearing about 3 weeks ago and then the ensuing discussion that I could kind of suss out suss out from the members of the committee. And and was the subject of back and forth between Mr. Lancaster and at least one other member of this committee is, OK, so if somebody changed an address when the person whose address was changed and I see in one of your exhibits here it's the big thick one I was looking through, that you have all of the affidavits. From the petition circulators From the petition circulator From the petition circulators saying yes, this reflects the truth. This amendment or redaction and I agree with whoever said it, but for different reasons. It wasn't really a reaction. Reaction means the black something out. So it was an amendment, but, but you have here, unless these affidavits or I misunderstand them. Uh, which I don't think I do. The people signing the affidavits. I, I, I'm sorry, I don't have the, I, I don't want to take the time to read through them, but I believe if Addresses were changed. I think the record will show. Based on my observations of what happened at the first hearing. That it was done either at the request. Or with the permission. Of the person whose address was changed and far from being something that we ought to bring the full force and weight of the executive branch of criminal investigation and criminal prosecution. If someone wants to correct something to bring a legal document in conformity with the regulations of law that seems to be something that we should be praising, not looking for a way to punish. I then you ask me why, why I've come to this conclusion. I listened very, very closely to the opening. A statement and I was struck by two things, one of which I've already mentioned, which is the co-chair, I thought the chairman said, but I read vice chair when he read his statement about looking for whether criminal laws were violated, uh, and whether a class C felony was perpetrated. I see sort of the abandonment. Of the legislative function of saying gee, how can we make our laws better? How can we make the differentiation between Residents and domicile clear so that good citizens who remember the people rule. Which we hope is true in this country. But it is the motto of of this state, as you know. That that we're not gonna look for ways to use the full force of this great committee, this, and I'm not being sarcastic, you're all smart and you're all dedicated public servants. But we're not going to use the might. Of the legislative force. To try to punish people who did something that in the end. I think reasonable minds could say is perfectly. Legal and the second thing, and here's where I will end it unless you or anybody else has questions. The second thing that I was struck by was the serial admonishment. From the leaders of this committee from the chair and the co-chair. That we are not here today to talk to about paper ballots. And, and great emphasis has been placed on that, that we're not here, we're just here what I hear is what when I listen. How I interpret that to be is we're just here to find out if we can hang somebody for doing something wrong and kind of mock a lawyer who's trying to live up to his attorney's oath. That's, that's the first line in the Wisconsin I shall keep the confidences of my client. With the understanding that if I don't, my law license can be taken away among many other things. So when I see a lawyer vigilantly guarding the confidentiality of the, uh, of what a, what a client. Or what a potential client, it covers not just established clients, but the, the attorney client privilege also extends to conversations that were had in either anticipation or consideration of legal representation. And it's designed that way for a purpose and the law recognizes only a few such, uh, privileges, Minister, Minister congregate, doctor patient, uh, a lawyer, a client. So when I See all of these things. I ask myself why are these smart people Spending so much public time and public money. Trying to figure out who who did in my view, a perfectly lawful thing. Rather than say gee, why is it and this is what motivated me to lead that investigation, and I took a lot of public scorn and a lot of political scorn. Which I didn't have to take. But I did it because it was the right thing to do, to tell my fellow citizens the truth about what happened. I grew up cableman, can we get back on topic and ask the senator's question, Senator, do you have another question you want to I will. I will finish up if the chair will permit me, and that is to say, that is to say, That a majority of the people in this country have very serious doubts about the legitimacy about the legitimacy and the honesty of our public elections. All right, thank you, Senator Clark. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, for the follow-up. The I appreciate your point of view. That being said, This legislature passed a law. That we thought was clear, uh, the attorney General, no one else came in and said it wasn't clear, uh, that. Did not allow folks from out of state to come in, uh, and, uh, gather signatures on petitions in Arkansas. The, uh, Mr. Lancaster's testimony has been that he was made aware of that later. And so his may I make a request? Could I have a cup of water, please? Either that or a 2 minute break or something so we're having a recess and we're gonna get this thing wrapped up, but all the staff to get you a bot of water, but we've got 3 others that want to ask questions and we got a motion on the floor. I'm sorry, but could you finish the question and as long as you don't expect me to talk after before water, I will answer, perhaps you could be more brief, but, uh, no, no, as Mr. Lancaster and I just gave the eulogy at my dad's funeral. And I said, he, he would have thought the eulogy should have been shorter, but anyway, please, uh, Mr. Lancaster's advice is I remember his testimony was afterwards, not no one came to him before and said should we, can we, uh, bring people from out of state now he's a lawyer, he's a good lawyer. He's come up with an argument as to why that's legal. Clint's saying it's legal. As good an attorney as he is and being a friend, you saying that no laws being violated doesn't convince me in the least, uh, you get 5 lawyers, 5 different opinions, and you, you have a job if somebody has violated the law to try to uh get them out of trouble, but I think it's clear to most Arkansans. That what the law said was that you couldn't bring in. folks to gather petitions and we did and I think the people who did it who I probably also think highly of, uh, knew what they were doing when they did it and for that reason, you can expect the state legislature. To be aggravated. Uh, that one we violated the law. I appreciate Clint coming in and, and, and being as open as he's been and uh and I think, I think most other people here appreciate that too, but that he's tried to answer the questions. But that being said, that doesn't do away with our aggravation. We understand his role, but it doesn't do away with our aggravation that we had a law we thought was plain. It was open in our opinion it was openly violated and we certainly want the message sent that we don't want it happening with, with anybody in any group and especially one where these are Arkansas people who are passionate. This isn't, you know, uh, I don't think the volunteers would reading that law would would approve of, of the actions. We're taking. So. Clint, can you understand? Why the aggravation from the legislature. And, and why the tough questions? Do you? I do understand, Senator Clark, I, I think the, the legislature, especially JPR has a right to be frustrated with what happened. And because it, I think it's representative Vaut said last time, this wasn't what she thought when she passed this bill, this, it wasn't functioning like she thought it should function. And so, sure, I, I'm happy to come here and answer the questions I can answer to help the legislature work through the, it's. It's right, rightful frustration. Thank you, Mr. Galman for your passion, uh, and for caring, uh, thank you for trying to be as open as you can, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, for allowing me to ask my questions. All right, uh, we're going to cut it off as far as those on our board will go to representative Beatty, Representative or Senator Johnson, and then uh represented Lundstrom. We'll have the final word and she has a motion that was mentioned, but I do want to say one thing, um, you know, benefit of, uh, living in Arkansas since I was 16 and being a legislature now 14 years is have the privilege of being an in-state resident and I just want to read you what the law says and what our, uh, what we are allowed to do as a committee because the integrity of this committee and the chairs has been called into question by somebody from out of state. And so I want to clarify what the law says for the purpose of protecting the integrity of this Arkansas institution, the joint. Performance Review Committee may subpoena any person or books, records or other documents relevant to the investigation or inquiry and hold public hearings on allegations of violation of election law. We are well within our rights. That's a longstanding history of this committee. It'll be longstanding into the future and we are functioning within the law of which most people have an appreciation for the boundaries of the law. With that representative Beatty. Back over here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I'm just gonna ask again for a list of clients that you're invoking that, that are the privileged parties, um. So that we can have that information as far as exactly which clients, you don't have to say the client because there seem to be multiple clients are out there, but maybe provide us. A listing of who are the privileged parties that, that you're asserting today. I can give you that list right now if you'd like. Yes, please. John Bailey. Jan Bailey, Conrad Reynolds, Will Huff, uh, Brian Norris, Daniel, I, I can never say his last name. It starts with an R. He was the plaintiff in Johnson County. Thank you. Thank you. And then just 11 last question. Prior to invoking attorney-client privilege, have you discussed the affidavits and the altered documents with anyone outside of those privileged parties. Well, yes, there was as the cases wound through litigation. I ended up talking to other attorneys and judges and, and things of that nature. But other than that, you know, other than in the course of litigation, which would not be privileged, and it is not privileged, but, um, that was probably not. I don't, I don't think there's any information there that's gonna get you to where Senator Dismay wants to go on who, on naming these people, but so, so even after discussing those with parties that do not have privilege, you're still going to invoke attorney-client privilege. On, on who signed the document. Did, was that discussed with these individuals? It was discussed with the individuals that I named. Yes. Now, the courtroom and litigation discussion was more different. It was different than that. OK. Well, I would. I mean, a lot of this could be over with if we just knew who, who made the alterations on the documents so I would encourage you to, to reach out to those privileged parties and, and just try to provide that information to the committee. I, I know they're watching today, so they will probably call me on my drive back to Saline County. Thank you, sir. Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Justice G and my condolence. I'm right here. Uh, my condolences for the loss of your father. I had to do a eulogy for my own father and I probably talked too long too and he was a justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. I have to Take great issue with your condemnation of us and using the separation of powers argument to to do so, uh. Like most states where bicameral legislature and we follow the federal model uh of separation of powers, but we also have specific powers in this committee, which I'm not a member of, but I chair, uh, The audit committee on counties and municipalities, which this could very well. End up in the jurisdiction of that committee because of some of the violations that may be coming forth from this. But I just want to make clear to everyone that this is not about paper ballots. I tend to lean toward preferring paper ballots, but that's irrelevant to this. This is, uh, we think Arkansas initiative and referendum process, which is over 100 years old and was outlined by Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution is for Arkansans and we're very jealous of the fact that we've seen in recent years, and you're probably not aware of. This many out of state entities that have have come in to uh. Necessitate some something they wanted out of our state oftentimes some kind of uh, uh, monetary monopoly, uh, gambling and marijuana being the most recent ones, but you see them all over, uh, so we're very protective of that initiative and referendum process and when abuses like this are brought to our attention we want to get to the bottom of it so when we go in session in January, we can correct any. Problem in the law that would allow us to do that so uh I wanna call you out on your red herring of the of the paper ballot issue. I'm, I'm OK with paper ballots. I think I actually prefer them, but. Uh However we get there. The initiators of that need to follow the rules and we have rules and it's pretty clear by the paperwork in front of us that someone altered a very critical document to that, so I just want to say we, I think we are on what we're supposed to be doing, uh, if you knew our Recent history and you're not expected to, you're a guest here and we appreciate that, but, uh, we know that there are many opportunities for some entities to cheat our uh initiative and referendum process. So we're going to try to clean it up. So that's what we're here for and I appreciate, uh, Senator Clark's comments, Senator Dibang's comments on this and certainly you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly That's up to the chair, one minute and I'm gonna cut you off because I'm going to motions first of all, I thank the gentleman for his correction as I do thank the chairman for his clarification. I say only in my defense that as I was sitting here in the hearing room, I, I went to the website for the Arkansas legislature, the same place that most people would go to, uh, to find out the mission of this committee, you stated that. Moving on representative lunch. Representative Lunchstrom, you're recognized for your motion. I want to go ahead and make a motion. We'll take discussion. Thank you, Chairman Hammer. Um, I wore my good cowboy boots today, but unfortunately we seem to be stepping around a lot of things. I wouldn't step in in a barnyard. Um, we need to move this, um, to, uh, refer it to prosecution, the AG's Office of Election Integrity and Ethics Commission. It's proper motion is our 2nd. Discussion. I would say this as chair in keeping with the, what we are allowed to do as JPR committee, I think the tone of the meeting, uh, meetings has been civil. I appreciate the dialogue. Uh, there's a matter that there's a question even acknowledging in the back and forth as to where the law has been violated with regards to the altering of official document. There's also questions as to regarding the funding process of initiatives such as this and as was stated a while ago, we do have our limitations As the legislative branch, I think that we have reached the point of establishing that there is just cause to refer this out and then the judicial branch can pick it up from there and they will handle the rest of this moving forward from it. So any other discussion to the motion? Having heard the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye, and he opposed. Thank you. It'll be handled appropriately and we'll get the staff to get things prepared. Thank you all for being here today. We are going to hear from the public. Uh, we've got a list of 8 that are signed up and there is one thing I would like to do, uh, I would like to ask, there's a report members that's on the agenda and honestly this is what it amounts to. We need to um have consideration to approve the September 9th, uh, meetings, which we did, and then uh we need to have the adoption of the Act 276 of 2021 report, uh, submissions, file report submitted. To the ALC council and are there any members who wish to make any suggestions or corrections on the recommendation of this report. We'll vote it out. It'll go to ALC. Senator Hammer, may we be excused? Yeah, sorry about that get up and walk out if you weren't done with this. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, so with that, um. Need to take a motion to refer this out to ALC. And motion a second and discussion. All favor say aye, a post. OK, it's referred out. We're gonna go to public comment to, uh, finish out, um, we are going to give the members of committee time to speak. I may have a little trouble with some of the names of I, uh, because some of the handwriting have trouble reading, to be honest with you, and if you still want to come up into, uh, speak, I would ask you just respect, maybe keep your comments to 5 minutes if you're gonna say something somebody else has saidmiss any witnesses, any witnesses, any witnesses that are here, you're free to leave at this point. Thank you and do appreciate you being responsive. To come in, um, we'd ask just respectfully if you could keep it to around 5 minutes each and we want to give your time. Again, I would like to say this, uh, I see some of the subject matters that are signed up on here, uh, the petitioning process, some machines, uh, we have been speaking to the content of the committee today without referencing the debate should we go paper about or should we not? Should we have machines or should we not? Uh, that's been clearly stated, so I would just ask that you keep that in consideration as you come with. Comments first of all, um, I believe it's Barker. I'm having a little trouble reading Barker. And nobody will be placed under oath. You're welcome, come, uh, share your comments, please. Uh, sir, just come to this table right here. Come around that post right there. There you go. There you go, uh, just come on and grab one of those seats and push that button and you'll see a little green light light up and you were, if you wouldn't mind your, your name for the record, please, sir. It's Alfred Barker. Thank you. You're representing any entity or just yourself, sir? Uh The Lord Jesus Christ. Very good. Go ahead. A lad, when was the abortion bill signed in the law, uh, did, did we get the states to choose. Sir, that's not the subject of the conversation here. We're not, uh, what the public comment is is for you to share with us any thoughts that you have, uh, but as far as dialogue unless members want to ask questions, it's going to be a one way, one-sided conversation. Thank you, let me go back to that, uh. Are we gonna start to the petition again. Is that how this is gonna work? We've got to go back and start with a position again. Uh, serve with all due respect, we're, we're listening to what you have to say as far as answering any questions, uh, it's really not the purview of the committee, uh, it's just for you to give you a chance to voice voice your thoughts here. That's OK. Thank you, just an old country boy. Hey, we appreciate it. Just learning, trying to learn the system. Yeah, uh, OK, no questions, uh, your statements. So, uh, I guess. We'll find out how this goes out. I believe paper ballots is going to be the way to go because we got too much outside interference. I believe, state of Arkansas has the right to choose how it wants to govern itself. Because we're not any other state. We are the Bible Belt. We have fertile ground here in America. We can have anything we want. We at one time had cattle. We had, uh, milk. We had cattle farmers, pig farmers. Or translation Uh, Arkansas could stand on its own. We don't need the outside interference. There's, they're my statement. Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here today. Next, I have David. Um, Sunnier I getting close to that or you can correct me when you get here, sir. And if you would, uh, when you have a seat there, just your name and if you're representing a group, what group it is, or yourself individually, please, sir, and I'll keep it brief. My name is David Sonya is always pronounced, uh, thank you. I'm a retired Lieutenant colonel in the army. I spent 20 years in the army and about half that time I spent as a computer scientist. I worked at A at Air Force Institute of Technology, where I taught and did research. And I worked at the US Army Computer Science School in my last position I held before I retired in 2001. I was the Uh, IT director for the US military delegation to the NATO, uh, military, uh, committee. I was there at the same time as General Clark, who lives here in Little Rock, um, and since then, since I retired in 2001, I've been teaching computer science at a school, at a college here in Arkansas, the Lion College, and I recently was just retired from that, which is why I have time to be here today. I have grave concerns and I was going to articulate those, but out of respect for your, your rules that you said at the beginning of the meeting. I, I will not because this is not a forum for that debate. But I would just respectfully suggest to you and the other committee members there does need to be a forum for that for the public to be heard on this for for people such as myself, I have a letter here that I was going to submit to, to you and to this committee, uh, signed by myself and some fellow computer scientists. In which we articulate those concerns and we document it very well with some, uh, research, some very good research, um. Juried research and I, I'll withhold that letter as well and hopefully in the in the future we'll be able to have such a hearing. And I will just point out that this Saturday at 12 o'clock at Embassy Suites in Little Rock. Uh, one of these professors, my colleague, uh, uh, Doctor Apple from, uh, from Princeton University will be speaking and then he'll be speaking with me. We'll have a town hall later on that evening in Batesville on this subject and so I think it's a subject that that as you can see there's a lot of public interest and I hope that we'll find the right. Place and time for the the public to express our concern. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you mind taking a question? No, not at all. Not really a question. I would just invite you if you want to share your letter, the members of the committee, their email addresses are on the web, the legislative website, you're, you're free to send that to us if you'd like. I will absolutely do that. Do you have a copy you can leave with us? I will leave it with you right now. We'll be glad to receive that and if I could ask staff to, uh, uh, grab it from you. We'll be glad to take that and, uh, uh, distribute copies to the members that are here. The, um, um, and I, and I would say this, and thank you for bringing it up, um. You know, when, when the last legislation when the last legislative session was in play, uh, there was a significant amount of, uh, conversation about this and is, uh, Senator Johnson mentioned a while ago, uh, in his committee would be the appropriate one. So there, there is a format where this will be able to be heard and the next legislative session would be a great time to, to, uh, be able to come and do that. Well, thank you. I hope I can be a part of that. Thank you very much for hearing me out. Thank to all of you. Thank you. And next to Brian Norse. And sir, if you would uh name and if you represent a group, the name of the group or yourself individually, please, sir. Yeah, my name is uh Brian Norris. I'm not here representing a group, but I was the lead for the Independence County Paper ballot initiative, so in some format you can say that I represent that group. Um, Who am I? I'm a retired United States Army first sergeant. I spent the last 21 years teaching America's finest how to hunt down their fellow man and execute justice upon them. And I was very good at this job and this trait. In her testimony today is 5 combat deployments. I never lost one soldier that was underneath me. And the reason why that was is because I pay extreme attention to detail. I pride myself in discipline. I immerge myself into whatever it is I'm doing and I cross every T and I dot every I because lives did depend on it. My nation was at war for 20 years. The entire time I was on service. And I paid extreme attention. As if lives were going to be at risk, which they were to what I was doing because implications were lives lost. During this process, After I retired, I had an idea of what I thought that our country was. And I fought for that idea. I bleed for that idea. I spent 6 months in Walter Reed for that ideal. And I'd do it all over again. But that idea has been crushed. It has been smashed. All I wanted to do was give the will of the people in Independence County, a voice in how their votes were going to be counted and tabulated. That's it. Just to put it on a ballot, say, hey, you want it or you don't. Very simple. I have been met with. Roadblock after roadblock and after roadblock. But because of my attention to detail, Everything that they put in front of us, we knocked down. That's why we're the only county out of the nine, they're gonna have it on the ballot this November. Because we set a record for the number of signatures that we captured in Independence County. There were a few paid canvassers that came to our area. They amounted for about 13,030 to 170 votes, something like that, but they never came to me. I never saw them. I never did anything with them. We didn't need them. And that's why we're on the ballot this November. Um, And to be sued by my county clerk and have it go all the way to the Supreme Court to simply have something put before the people to say, would you like this or not? We didn't have a choice on machines. They showed up one day. Well, you didn't give us an option. So we said we wanted an option. Well, Some of the things that happened, we in this day on August after I submitted our petition, uh then the very next day foed my county clerk because immediately they said it was an insufficient title that for you. Do some pretty amazing information. We submitted our petition on August 7th. Through that FOIA, on August 5th, we found emails from Daniel Haney, who is the county attorney to Tracy Mitchell. This email mentions, it appears as though many of the initiative tensions have signatures from canvasses who were non-residents of Arkansas. These signature sheets were immediately thrown out. He further states, I anticipate that you will encounter a similar experience. When you do, this is the letter draft from AAC Arkansas Association of Counties has provided me to state that the The petition is insufficient due to the lack of signatures. That's a 501c3 organization getting directly involved in the will of the people. I got a problem with that, and I hope you do too. They go on further. Emails from Rochelle Evans to Tracy Mitchell's July 30th of 2024. Even before Way before because I pull you back 40 days. In this email chain, wheres specially agrees with the summary provided by Daniel Haney saying, I have 110% agree with you in your summary. At the end, she adds, the things this petition request would be very expensive and it's a quorums core job to determine the best use of the county's resources. That shows the county clerks, this shows that the county clerks were coordinated across all counties on what they were going to do instead of taking it case by case, county by county, as they're supposed to, right? And this was likely under the AEC's guidance as well. Uh, and further clarification from Rochelle Evans. The title doesn't clearly inform a non-disabled burger we'll have a choice between machines and paper ballots. It's allowable to point out that disabled person by being the only reason why you can't vote with a machine. Now, here's some of the AEC's direct involvement. On that August 5th email, Haney forwards another email to Vel Evans stating the AEC would like to save the ballot title for the next election cycle because every county has had sufficient signatures. This suggests that the AAC had a game. Plan of how they were going to game this out in stonewall us to 2024, 2026, and then even further. Purposefully standing in the way of what the people want. Just to have their voices heard. We're gonna investigate them, you're gonna refer charges for them. I hope so. I'll come down here and gladly share testimony. This level of coordination from the clerks in the AEC suggested decisions about sufficiency in election-related matters are not being made independently. It's a coordinated effort to keep our initiatives off. That's petition interference, right? You, you, you're all upset about some out of state petitioners coming in and collecting signatures, but not one time today did I hear anybody say anything about what did the people want when they signed it? They don't care who the person standing in front of them was. You might, but they don't. They see every day on the news that the machines are messing up. Memphis recently, Georgia again, Arizona again. It's interface constantly. Arkansas has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the nation. And when I was walking around, I did something that was audacious. I asked him, why don't you vote? Because my vote doesn't matter. I feel my vote doesn't matter. As someone that placed their life on the line for their ability to vote and to hear them say that to me is crushing. What have I done? What if my friends sacrifice for. I've missed the births of my children, anniversaries, birthdays, holidays. I've spent months in areas that you cannot imagine and don't want to. Ever For this. To come home and hear my fellow countrymen say, I'm not gonna vote. It doesn't matter. Doesn't count. And another point that I would like to point out here. when we're concerned about organizations getting involved in a petition process. I've helped the Arkansas Family Council with numerous activities. Are they subjected to the same scrutiny? Because they send out flyers. They do phone banking, they do emails, they do social media. They get directly involved. Do they register themselves every time with every issue? I don't think so. And there's plenty of organizations that go out there and do that. But they're not subjected to this form of scrutiny. Why is this issue being subjected to this form of scrutiny. If we want to, if we want to be equal across the board. Let's bring in the AEC and ask them, why are you, why is a 501c3 organization. Deciding. To dictate what elected officials are doing at the county level. Why are you putting forth a plan that's gonna keep them from enacting their petition on the 2024 ballot, then on the 2026. Deliberately. I would like, I would be upset if I were you coming to that realization, and I would want some answers. I would absolutely love to take some questions from you. Members, any questions? Sir, I do not have any lit up at this time. Thank you for your time. Thank you and thank you for your service along with David that was before you, Richard Burr. Is Richard Burke still here? OK, uh, Joshua Fos Afternoon, sir, if you would please your name and if you represent it group, the name of the group or your here as an individual, please, sir. I'm Joshua Foss, uh, I guess I would represent concerned citizens of Independence County, myself, um. I'll be brief Uh, since What you asked about paper ballots, we could talk about that and that's, it's not requested. So, um, I'm an in-state resident since I was 1335, about to be 36 now. And I was part of collecting ballots in in Pens County. Um, it is a great concern. It's a great concern with the citizens, every citizen that I spoke to, and I spoke to many. Uh, hundreds of citizens that I personally spoke to. And many of them as echoed by Brian Norris, uh, many of them are also at this point concerned that they do not trust. Um, their votes to count. Uh, they're not. Even many not fully persuaded by their legislators to trust what's going on in Little Rock. And I would echo that on some of the things that I personally see. Um, I do appreciate you guys allowing us to speak here today. I thank you. And I would just be obviously there's some gray areas on collecting. Petitions, um, that's been brought out. I can say personally, in our efforts to collect petitions, we did everything possible that we know of. We try to cross every T.ei to make sure that our petitions were legal, legit, everything was done right, uh, to keep them, uh, above reproach, above questions, uh, that we did it correctly down to, I would sign off on pages that I personally was given to go get petitions. I would sign my initials so it would come back to me and I can answer for those particular pages. We all did that, uh, because it was a great concern. And so, There's some gray areas. I would just caution the legislator in the future, not saying there's nothing to do about any of them, but do we become so big brother into we collect data on all companies, all businesses that give any money to anybody, um, that would. Have a cause whether it's this cause or another cause to petition in Arkansas? Do we cover everything? I mean, I'm reminded of just the Biden administration a couple of years ago where we were threatened if you did a, a transaction over $600 that the government would want to hear, hear about it. They, you would have to report that to the government. Um, obviously, that's not well taken in Arkansas, uh, from my experience talking to individuals, not well liked. There wasn't uh except. It and thankfully, we at this point don't have to do that, but I would caution, uh, our legislators, uh, going into the future in passing laws that we would be careful about the same thing that that we don't end up falling, um, following suit and end up doing the same thing. Uh, that we would sow oversight everything, uh, to where nobody can move, nobody can do anything without giving a report, without doing this. I'm not saying we can't have any oversight. I'm not against all oversight. I understand accountability, responsibility, um, I'm a preacher, I'm a teacher. Uh, when I stand in the pulpit, I have a responsibility to my God. I have a responsibility to the people that I'm teaching, that I'm preaching before, that I have it corrected when I give it. I had that. Responsibility and there's others that make me accountable to them too, even in my own life. And so I absolutely understand accountability. We need to be responsible, um, but we also don't need to be so oversight that everybody, me, I don't know all this stuff. I don't know. I don't know all the legal terms and stuff. When we got our group together to do this petition, we didn't know everything. Now, we, we try And, and we had A minds to figure this out, but Many of this is grassroots, and we don't know all the logistics and all the legalities to get everything just perfect that somebody might call us on later that, wait a minute, you didn't do that right, so you're canceled out. And I, and overwhelmingly, I would say my personal experience with. Arkansans, as many feel the same way. And there's many now that say, You know what, I'm not interested in because I'm just not, I'm not sure. I don't want to get involved. I'm afraid I'm going to be, uh, looked at. I'm gonna have to go before a panel. I'm gonna have to give, and I, I just, and that is an amazing danger. To our republic in the United States as we are a republic, not fully a democracy, but a republic and the state of Arkansas. And with that, I would just say, I would be very cautious as we move into the future to legislator, and I thank you. Thank you. I have one question. You say you're from Independence County? Yes, sir. So y'all are gonna get to vote. It is on your ballot to vote with y'all on the ballot, OK, so, so the system did work as far as you being able to get it on the ballot in your county, correct? We did because we, we covered and, and as Brian Norris said, we did not, you know, we, we did everything we could, but we are all part of this together, uh, in these other counties trying to get it on as many on the counties that we could, uh, to get it on their ballots and the signatures and so. We're all in this together, um, but yes, we've been able, and we've gone through the courts too, but again, some of that should have. My opinion in many people's opinions. That should have never happened. Never should have had to go to the Arkansas Supreme Court. We did our job, we did it right, and we were fought on every single turn all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court, who thank God said, yes, you have to put it on the ballot. They They have full right to it, and that has to be done. And so I, we thank God for that, um, but it shouldn't even had it gone to that. To that place And, and that is, that's our concern. All right. Thank you, sir. All right, next, uh, Dan. Robonus You correct me on your name, pronunciation, sir. Sorry about that. I mispronounced it. And if you would please, um, name and if you're. Representing yourself as an individual or a group, please sir. Dan Rumbanis representing We the People, I gathered 1100 signatures in Johnson County turned in 3 under 1300. You're looking for wrongdoing. Are you following the pamphlet, the handbook, the 2024 handbook? Is that what you're looking through and looking for wrongdoing? Well, our clerks. Took the signatures. And they were supposed to get back to us, send a letter to our attorney, our representative, or the petitioner. None of us got a letter, so we can cure the invalid signatures. So is there some wrongdoing there? Is there something illegal? A violation. So this whole process has demoralized the people. I've talked to thousands of people. We the people want hand marked hand counted paper ballots in Arkansas. And everybody else, Through this process has been against that effort. Congratulations, good job. Be proud of yourself. So, I'm just speaking for the people. We'd ask for you to cease and desist what you're doing and do the right thing for we the people of Arkansas. The people that came in from out of state and the people that are here today from out of state, thank you on behalf of Arkansas. We're Americans. You're American, we're American. Thank you. Thank you for coming and helping we, the people of Arkansas, Try to get something that we wanted, hand mark hand counted paper ballots. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Pat Roberts. At your selling room. OK, last one then I have is Francis Doc Washburn. Doc, are you still in the room? OK. That's everybody that signed up on the list. Thank you for saying, thank you for your comments, um, and with that, members, we are adjourned.