Joint Performance Review (JPR)

Hi, you'll you ballots. OK, you know, A petition be there you know I've done it and they, OK, yeah, I got to get started, but OK. All right. All right, members, um, we're gonna get started with the JPR meeting, a couple, uh, housekeeping, if you wanted to sign up to speak about anything today, the staff is going to put out the sign sign-in sheet. We'll take them up in a little bit if you want to sign up to speak on either of the subject matters, uh, Emily's putting the sign up sheet out there. You can do that. And then also, uh, members, do you, uh, Mr. Co-chair, do you have anything you want to share? OK, we're good. All right, and with that being said, members without objection. Oh, yeah, sorry, uh, need to, uh, take up B consideration the approval of minutes from May 14th and July 27th. Can I get a motion second on the minutes, please. Motion 2. OK, you got a second a discussion. All favor say aye, aye, he opposed. OK, members without objection. What we'd like to do is swap C and D. Uh, we don't think Dee is going to take very long. We'll give a report on this and uh without any objection we're gonna go ahead and deal with the first because it should be short and ejection. All right, we're gonna take up D. So if you go to D, it's discussion of Act 276 2021. Act to amend the process of ava evaluation of state boards and commissions to require submission of a report to recommend the eboliation of state board commissions for failure to submit a report and other purposes, uh, and members this act requires that all the uh item, all the entities mentioned, uh, have to submit their report. Those have been submitted and I think they're in your packet, you can. You got a copy of the bill which was House Bill 1356. And then what you have prepared for the chairs are a list of those who have complied. And if you flip to the back, I think you'll find those. That have not complied and Kobe, this was as of when today. We gave him a little grace, a little attitude, um, quite honestly, some didn't realize they're supposed to do what we found out, so we gave them a little grace, latitude, but if you look at those that have not complied that uh list is on there so I would just simply ask at this time. If there are any, uh, Questions from members that you would have about this, uh, what I would suggest is this is the first time, correcting me if I'm wrong, guys, this is the first time this report has been put out since that law was enacted, is that correct? Sad time. Uh, so what I would recommend is if, um, if y'all see somebody on that list. Talked to the co-chairs, our next meeting we'll bring them back up in front of us and ask them why they didn't get the report filed and y'all can have your opportunity at them, then, uh, and I'll open up the mic for a conversation if anybody has anything you want to weigh in or co-chair. Do you have any thoughts on that? I agree John All right, Senator Mark Johnson, you are, is that you, you recognize Senator Mark Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if I bumped my button I apologize, it was inadvertent. No problem. All right, thank you. And Senator Love, are you wanting to speak? There you go. You recognizes love. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm just trying to quickly glance to the act. Now, were the, were the ones that have not complied, were they contacted by They, they were contacted. I mean, I'm, I'm just, or can I mean staff staff answer that let me let Kobe tell you what we did to notify them so you have just kind of walk through the process, I guess. Good question. Thank you. Yes, Senator, so I sent out an email to all the boards and commissions in which I had been given a list of from 2022 when this reporting process first went on, uh, I sent that out, I would say, forgive me, I don't remember the exact date back in, had have been early August, late July, I sent out an email to all of the chiefs of staff of the apart the departments in Arkansas. And I also sent out the first point of contact to all of the boards of commissions that were not under a direct department. Uh, and of course, the initial deadline to submit this report was August 1st, and we then send out a follow-up email prior to that deadline. I'd say, uh, July 14th, uh, before that first deadline. And then so there was plenty of notice that was given to the chiefs of staff to get them ports. Uh, we then issued follow-up statements to these boards and commissions, uh, had been 23 weeks ago and letting them know there will be a discussion of this act and all the boards and commissions who did not submit a report. They will be discussed by the committee on this day. OK, so we are certain, I mean, because usually I'm, I'm thinking like we're gonna. We didn't send out any certified, but, but we are certain that that. I guess whoever needed to be contacted was contacted. They just opted not to. Submit a report. So, of course, I can't speak for the board's commissions who did not reply, but of course, uh, I have gotten at least a report from all of the departments, uh, but for those that are listed on the not in compliance list, they either I do not have confirmation as to whether they did submit a report or they have submitted uh responses back to us saying that they believed that they were not in compliance or they or rather, excuse me, that they were not required to submit a report based on whether. They were considered to be an Amendment 33 constitutional board or commission, and I have a couple of those examples from of responses that we have received and we, and that that would include say the state board of law examiners, that was one that based off of the BLR's, uh, looking into this, they, they was determined that they were not required to submit a report. So there are plenty of examples like that, uh, that hopefully answers your question. OK. Alright, I was just, I'm just curious in regards to, I mean, if we're gonna get rid of, get rid of these boards of task force that we just made sure that we You know, uh, we did contact them. They were aware, they just failed to do it and or they might just be defunct in it it's not necessary for for them to continue on, but, OK. All right, thank you, and Senator Love. I would point to the last paragraph of the bill and now I wanna recognize co-chair representative General Barry, what we're supposed to do is get it and then we're gonna submit it to ALC, uh, no later than December 1st. So between now and then, uh, I got a feeling we'll have another meeting where these will have further opportunity uh to get them in, but we've got to submit a report to LC by December 1st. I would go ahead and say this, uh, we've already talked to, uh, the bureau about the, uh, trying to develop a overall summary of all these boards and commissions that would reveal, uh, the number, kind of like a spreadsheet that showed the the times that they met, how many were in attendances and the attendance records of each, but, um, that would come from the men. So that, that'll be a little bit of a project, but the goal. we could maybe get that before we come back together and these others would have the opportunity to bring their reports to. Representative Barry. And uh thank you, chair, but it's the Borden commissions, uh, responsibility to know the law and you know when you have 95, uh, boards or commissions that aren't in compliance with the law that creates a tremendous amount of work for our staff, uh, so, uh, you know, there's ways they have calendars and. Uh, in modern technology to keep track of what their requirements are, so we need to be, uh, the boards and commissions need to be responsive to uh the needs of this committee and and follow the law and leave it at that thank you. And there's 23 that have not, and those are segregated out to where you can see the ones that have not there on the last two pages, uh, so if you have personal contact with them, I'd encourage you to, uh, reach out to him. 95 originally, yes. All right, any other discussion members? So we're gonna hold this over to our next meeting and, uh, that, that's a summary of the explanation. Any questions? So if you're in here in the room for item D, um, with no questions, uh, that's our report at this time and we'll let y'all get back to whatever you're doing and we'll go back now up the agenda to item C, and I'm gonna recognize and ask, uh, Representative Dianne Vaut to come to the table and I would ask staff if you've not distributed the packets that the members have, if you would, please go put them on the table where members of the public can pick up those packets at this time and Representative Vaugh, if you want to remain standing as you come. It is our, uh, long-standing tradition that those that give testimony for this committee are placed under oath and I hope you don't mind. We recognize you're a representative. We appreciate that. Uh, so, hang on just one second. Did you give me that? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Representative thought, would you please write your, uh, raise your right hand. Uh, do you solemnly swear and affirm that your testimony about to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. And would you please state your name and title for the record, please. DMV District 87 state representative. Thank you, and we've had previous conversations, so we're not catching you off guard here, uh, but you and Senator Pitch passed a bill, uh, Senate Bill 346, which there's a copy of it, members in your handout. Uh, one of the things that we hold near and dear around here as legislators is recognizing the intent behind those that have passed legislation, um, subject specifically around the term of residency or domicile. And dealing with canvassers in state and out of state. Would you care sharing what your intent was when this piece of legislation would pass anything you'd like to share with the committee. Yes, sir. So when Senator Pitch and I was looking at this piece of legislation, um, Constitutional amendments are supposed to be ground grassroots type efforts in the state of Arkansas and not people being bussed in from other states to try to change our, our constitution in, in Arkansas. So, um, since we're one of the few states that still do that, we wanted it to be where it was residents of the state of Arkansas since it is a grassroots effort, and that's why we, that's what the law is supposed to be doing is they have to be residents of here. They can't use a different. Address, but they need to be here where they pay taxes and, and they live here in our, in our state. So your definition or your intent of the term, uh, residency or resident would have been what, when you drafted the legislation, your intent would have been what? That they have a home address here in the state of Arkansas. A permanent residence. Any questions from members? All right. Thank you for your time, Ms. May I call you back. Um, and members just because there's a list on the um, Agenda doesn't mean we're going to take them necessarily in that order either. Uh, so hang on one second because what I'd like to do now. I like to call, um, I like to call our notary publics that have been requested to be here and if we could, uh, we've got 5 on the list. I'll be honest with you, I don't know who has actually shown up today. So if you are David Williams, Crystal Hatfield, Amanda Berry, uh, Janet Paquiti, I believe Jennifer, uh, Kendrick, if y'all would please come to the table if you're in the room. Mhm. Good afternoon, ladies. Good afternoon. If you'll push that button in front of you, it should turn green right there. All right, there you go. And when it's green, that means the, the mic is, uh, is hot, um, what I'd like to do is, if y'all would please, uh, would you please state your, uh, name and, uh, being here as a notary public, would you just acknowledge that you're here in your capacity as a notary public, that's all that we're interested in today. So if you would please state your name for the record. I'm Janet Pocket, and I'm here as a notary public. OK. Uh, my name is Jennifer Kendrick, and I'm here as a roll of notary. OK. And if y'all would please stand, we're going to place you under oath if you would, please. Do each of you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and that's about the truth, so help you God. All right, thank you. So, um, first of all, Uh, It's all right if I call you by your first name, is it Janet Janet? Yes, ma'am. OK, um, Janet, did you notarize any of the, uh, canvassers, uh, signature collection sheets, um, did you notarize any of those yourself? OK. And which county did you notarize those in, please? In Saline County and in Faulkner County. OK. And by any chance did you happen to pick up a packet of the information did anybody provide that to you yet today? I don't believe so. If we can get the staff, if you don't mind, could we get the ladies a copy of the packet or Clint's handing it behind you. Ms. Chan, would you, uh, Would you look through that packet and see. If any of those that are there are years. That you, uh, notarize the members in your packet. You should have copies. Of the, uh, some of the signature sheets of the signature gatherers. And you'll notice that there's information that's redacted. One of them is the date of birth just for the record, that is by our policy that if we handle documents here, um, at the bureau that we will redact the date of birth. However, any other reactions such as at the bottom of the left-hand corner of some of them you'll see those redactions, uh, those were not, uh, done by our staff. So, uh, Janet, do you see any of those that have your signature on them? And Jennifer, you can be looking at the same time I don't see any so far. OK. Um, let me ask you, the ones that you notarized, even though they're not in the packet. The ones that you notarized, did any of them have any redacted information on them? the time that you signed them. OK. All right, uh, Jennifer, uh, which county do you have your notary in? Faulkner. Faulkner, OK, and you may or may not see any in there. Did you notarize any of the, uh, signature forms by the canvas gatherers at the camp. You did. OK. All right. And I'll ask you the same question I asked Jane, did you, uh, notarize any that had, uh, redacted addresses on such as what you see there. No, I did not. OK, all right. Uh, do each of you ladies, uh, Jennifer, do you keep a logbook? I, um, I have a notebook. Um, I got my. Authorized to be a notary to as kind of emerg an emergency type thing. So I've done it 5 times in 2 years, but you got a record anyway. Yes, um, I did notice on this particular day I wrote one name down, but I actually, I, I believe I, there were 3 people I've written Gayle Gola. And I see her on your list. Um, I have an arrow to the next page, and I actually took a picture of Gay's. Driver's license because it was just a. kind of a A lot going on, um, but I did do, I, I remember two other signators and I don't have that in my log. OK. Just out of curiosity based on your testimony, what was it that caused you to pause that you saw? Just a lot of, a lot of people from a lot of places and it was just not what I, I expected. I, I was going to, um. Uh, I work, I'm an attorney and, and there were, um, Someone called and they needed a notary and, um, I, my colleague was, was, you know, like, sure, we can, we can send someone in our regular, uh, notary was not there. And I just indicated honestly he was on the phone by note that I was happy to stop by when I got there, I wasn't expecting to sign like. 80 pages or something like that, so, uh, but every person that I, everyone that I signed, I would say there are 4 people and, and I did look at their IDs and they, they were who they said they were when, when they signed. OK, and when you signed what you said and, and you said when I got to where I was, where, where'd you go? Um, The address was, I did write that down 310 Amity Road. In Conway. And The um The forms that you signed, did they have any redactions on them? No, they did not. I would have noticed that the verification information because I sustain a not or you either have to know the person that they are in good standing or you can give testimony of their good standing or you have to have a form of identification. Is that correct? OK. And so the advocate identification that you looked at, did the address match the address that was on the, uh, former, do you remember? I know you don't have the benefit of it in front of you, but do you remember? I don't remember. I don't, I honestly don't remember. I mean, I definitely was. Made sure that that was. The individual before me, I, I honestly don't remember. I'm sure I did, but I, I really can't say either way. That's good. And, uh, Janet, as far as Uh, did you just say a minute ago that, uh, when you signed the, uh, sheets that there was no redactions on the sheets that you signed, right? Not that I noticed. I don't remember seeing any. Uh, I do see here that one of the, you just folding that mic down a little closer there for those of us that are hard hearing. Thank you. I do see that one of the names here I did notarize there's uh this Ya. Land something well, page 23. I did notarize, um, some of hers and I did that on July 15th in Faulkner County at 3:10 Amity Road. Conway, your noties is in Slane, but you went to Faulkner for a short time, I think one day was only you keep a logbook? I do. OK. And in your, what's in your, what's in, I know y'all keep a logbook. I'm just not sure what information is kept in the logbook. I have them sign that they, um, That I notarized a paper for them, and then I write, why I did it and the date, the location, what I was doing, that was the paper ballots, and then I write their name also in case I can't read it. OK. Do you keep an, do you put their address in your logbook on these because we were going through so many, I didn't write down their addresses. Do you remember the addresses? I don't. And I really didn't pay a lot of. Attention to their addresses. My goal was to look at them and look at their, um, identification and sure it was the same person. I looked at their name and then I made sure that was the name that they wrote down on their paper. And so that's what I looked at to notarize it. You mind taking some questions, you ladies, we're a friendly group, so, uh, David, uh, Representative Ray, gonna recognize you first, sir. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you ladies for being here this morning or this afternoon, excuse me. Um, so this question, I guess for both of you, when, when you notarize a document. Do you, I think you already answered this, but do you ask to see their ID? And for each person that you notarize related to this signature gathering effort was one that you asked for an ID able to produce one. yes. We, were any of those, uh, were all of those IDs, did they all have Arkansas addresses on them? I didn't look at their address. I, mine, I don't think one of them had Arkansas. Where, where was it from? I mean, I think that they were all out of state. The one that I took a photograph of. Um, Scottsdale, Arizona. But I, I don't recall. I don't recall the states, but I, I do remember that they were out of state. So how many approximately did you notarize? I would say how many individuals, 3 to 4. I believe there were 2 men and 2 women and all of those, of those 3 or 4, all of them were from a different state. I do believe so. OK. Um, that's, that's my question for the two of you. I do have a question for the chair, um, Mr. Chairman, it looks like there are 3 other notary publics that are on the agenda today that were invited that are not here. Um, did, did they give any sort of correspondence to the committee as to, um, whether or not they would be attending or. or why they are not attending. I want to Uh, defer to Kobe, we sent, please tell them how we sent notifications so everybody knows, please, Kobe. Just put you here. So Representative Ray, I had sent an email out per the instruction of Senator Hammer to the 5 notary publics, uh, of course, Ms. Paquette and Ms. Kendrick were the two that responded. They would be in attendance, however, I did not see any of her correspondence back via letter or through email uh from Mr. Williams, Miss Hatfield, or Miss Barry? And Kelly, how is it we obtained those email addresses? I provide them to you or do you? Yes, thank you. Uh, yes, uh, that was provided by you, Mr. Chairman. And I believe in a minute we can find out I think those came from official records, so those emails, um, I mean, 2 of the 5 responded, so we know we did the right thing because 2 of them were in the room this morning. Mr. Chair, if I could continue, I appreciate Ms Piquette and Ms. Kendrick for being here today, but as I thumb through this packet, It looks like, um, on all of these, uh, signature sheets where there is redacted address information and it's, uh, a new address is filled in. The notaries are Miss Hatfield, Mr. Williams, and some others on here. So it's very, you know, we sat through a committee meeting yesterday where witnesses were asked to come to a legislative hearing. And answer very straightforward, simple questions and refuse to do so and it's getting really frustrating. You know, our constituents expect us to get to the bottom of the things that we are looking into on behalf of them, and it's really hard to do that when the people who are invited to come testify and answer questions, refused to do so. So, um, Now may not be the appropriate time, but I do have a motion. For the committee related to, um, the individuals, uh, that were requested to be here and are not here today. I'll take your motion at the appropriate time because there may be some others as we move through the agenda. Well, just let me know when that would be. All right, thank you. uh, next on the list is. Uh, Representative Lunstrom here next. Hi there. I'm over here. Um, all of these have the same address. Is that, is that standard on an affidavit that everybody lives at the same address? No I mean, I, I even pulled my driver's license out and just looked and went, hm, I don't live at that address either, but evidently everybody in this packet is at the same address is that normal? I'm, I'm sorry, I, I don't know to which. Document your, you're referring. Um, I see. I just need you to give me some advice. I realize you didn't sign these, but I'd just like to know from a notary, is that normal? Um, um, I mean, I can see if you are canvassing, I can see maybe. Getting every, I mean, I, you know, this is just human being. I'm just thinking through it, this is not. I, I have a not notarized many. Many things with groups, but I mean, I guess I could see if you're going to a house, there being 3 or 4. Voters in that home, but I mean, if you, if you're seeing pages and pages of the same address. I, I would not think that that makes sense, I guess. And when I have been asked, I have told them to put down their home address. Would you say that again, please? I said, when, uh, people were filling that out and they said, what do I put down for the address? I say your home address. Lunchtrom pick it up if you want. Yes, well, all of these say I was a resident of 820 Bill Dean Drive, Conway, and I just thought that was odd. I know you guys didn't do that, but I'm just wondering, oh, I. I just, I do see that. I, I mean, this is just going from memory, but I, I, I didn't see anything like that when, when I, I, I mean, I genu genuinely. When I was notarizing, it, it all, there were just a lot of people and a lot of forms and that that just kind of gives me a raises a spotty sense or whatever so I did think, you know, what is, what is my role here and my role is to, is to ensure that the person that's signing on this. Bottom Box here is the person that, you know, who they say they are and and whether they want to swear to something or not is not my job to know whether they're swearing. They're telling the truth or not, but I just remember thinking, I just need to make sure this person is who they say they are. I think I would have noticed if they all had the same, were writing the same address down. I think I would have noticed that. Um, like I said, I have, I have one ID I know what her address should be. Her form is not in here. Um, but other than that, I, I don't, I don't know the addresses. I, I don't know for sure that I would have noticed it, but I think I would have. Who asked you to do this? Um, it was, uh, someone called the firm where I worked and was literally just asking for a notary. No good deed goes unpunished. All right, thank you. Representative V Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm over here on this side, way over here. Um, so. And It's kind of a double question. I know you said that the the driver's license that were given to you were out of state. But when do you get, how do you get the information on laws that we've passed. So like, I just got through testifying the intent of the law is for them to have an Arkansas residency. And those driver's license, you testified, didn't have Arkansas addresses on them. So my question is, why were those taken? Why, why were they, and did you not know what the law was? Why, why we're, what, what why did you accept the driver's license that were out of state if the intent of the law is for them to be from Arkansas and to have a residency from Arkansas. Well, I mean, honestly, my, my role as a notary. Really doesn't have anything to do with that in my opinion. I mean, my role is simply to make sure the person that's signing something or swearing to something is that person, whether they say I'm from Mars or whatever, um. I, I wasn't aware of what you're saying, but I, I would not have probably changed what I was doing that day. So who is the person who makes that call? Because the law says one thing, says it's, they've got to be residents of the state of Arkansas. But you wouldn't know. To your what you just said, you wouldn't realize that we'd passed the law, but you said even if you did know, you wouldn't have changed what you did. But the law says they have to be from the state of Arkansas before they can be petitioners here. Yeah, I, I would just think whatever the appropriate laws were on, on your petitions, you would throw them out. So if they're required to You know, have a name and address and a whatever, if it's required, if you require it to be in blue ink or, you know, whatever, I would, I would think that that would be whoever is accepting the, the signature pages. I would think it would be their job and, and, I mean, my, that is honestly all all that I did was just make sure that that was that person. I just didn't know how that was done. I didn't know if you knew that they had to be from the state of Arkansas. I did not. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And next is Representative Wooton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, ladies, I have a couple of questions, uh, do either one of you know Josh? Joshua James. I do not. Are you aware of the um I'm assuming this was an advertising in some Either over the social media or in the newspaper regarding, uh, Uh, the offer of payment. To people who circulated the uh signatures or the petitions for signatures and that they would, if they were from out of state that they would be paid $1200 a week. I am not aware of you know the address. Of sweet. 2 or whatever at home to hotel in Conway what address is that? I do not know the address of that lady on the right, my right, did you state that you don't look at the addresses on anyone that comes before you. I don't. I ask them to sign their address in front of me and fill out that lower part that they fill out, and, and I look at their ID. I make sure that that's who is in front of me and I don't pay attention to their address or where do you remember how many that you approved or signed off on his, uh, bona fide, um, uh, presenters of the petitions to how many of them had a 20. Uh, Bill Dean Road or Bill Dean whatever the street is, this is a mess. I mean that's, that's a country term, but that's what this is. Yeah, you have failed in your responsibility and to, to maintain a state notary, and I, I agree with Representative Ray. Uh, Mr. Chairman, if the other ones are not here, we need to get them in here. We need to get to the bottom of this. Thank you. That's what we're trying to do. And let me, let me just make this statement, um. Based on their testimony today, ladies, it's not so much. That we think there's an error or something else on your part, just from the chair's benefit. I want you to hear that. We're just trying to get an understanding. From somebody that was actively involved that's in the role of notary as far as what you're understanding is because one thing we need to maybe go look at coming down the road is as far as what other tools do you need in the toolbox to make sure, but what I hear you saying is that if that visual picture on that ID, whatever form of ID could, it could be any form of ID, right? It could be a government ID, uh, uh, a medical ID. It doesn't have to necessarily be a driver's license or do you know, does it need to be something with the. Dress on it what's important is a picture ID so I can look at that person and I can see that that looks like the picture and that that is the name that they're giving me, and that's the name of the writing down on that piece of paper and that's my responsibility to do that. So that's what we do. We don't focus on their address or what state they're from or any of that. Our responsibility is to ensure that the person who's asking me to notarize their paper is indeed that person. OK. And how long have you been a notary? Uh. Let me see my first. Entry was November 7th of 2023. OK. All right, um. Next would be Representative Gassway. No. OK. He All right, uh, Representative Brown, is that you? No. OK, we got it. You don't. OK, we got ghost in the system then. OK. Um, so what, what was the What was the last date? That you, uh, you keep a log books, so let me, let me go to you, Jan. What's the last date of, of form that you notarized for the signature gatherers? And Jennifer, I guess, what was your last date you got was the 16th of July. It was just 11 day, and mine was July 18th. July 18th, OK. Did I say the 16th or the 6th? I meant the 16th, 16th. OK, we got it. OK. Um, I think that's it. No other questions from members at this time. Ladies, we thank you all for being here. If you want to stick around, you may get called back up, but if you need to, that's fine. But I want to make one last call out, David Williams, Crystal Hatfield, Amanda Berry, are you in the room? OK. All right. Thank you all very much for being, 01 other thing, um, You You were called to an address to notarize these, is that right? Was it, was it a motel or was it a residence or what, what, what was it you were called to a business in Conway, yeah, it was. General Barry, did you, I think it was the same place, I think. Did you say 3 times? It was next door, it was a business and it was kind of a. Looks like a warehouse workroom maybe, and they had some tables set up and we're just, it was just kind of. Set up for this, I think. And this was on Amity Amity Road 10 Amity Road you know who owned the business or is it a Mr. Reynolds or no? OK, thank you. When I was in Benton, uh, I did not, I was not in a business. I was out on the um. Courthouse lawn. There was a picnic table and that's where I stayed for people to bring me their things to be. Do you know who set that table up for you who, who handled the logistics of it. I was just told, you know, to be there. And who called you there? Do you remember who called you? I don't really remember. I don't know if, um, it was when I went to the, uh, Saline County meeting or if it was later than that. I don't remember. Thank you all very much. All right, next, I'd like to get is, uh, Cameron Wiley, manager of the Home Suites Hotel in the room, please. OK. And We did notify by email, correct? OK. And any response? OK, no response, but they were notified so. Cameron Wiley, manager of the Home Two Suites Hotel in Conway was requested before JPR last call in the room. OK, not in the room, um, next, let's bring up, uh. Doug Curtis And Alison Kane, please. All right, if y'all would please, uh, you can go ahead and have a seat and give your name and title for the record, please, and then I'm gonna swear you in. Alison Kane, election coordinator for Sling County. Doug Curtis, Clane County Clerk. OK, would y'all please stand? You go through swallow we do both of you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so John. OK, thank you all. Um, the, the question that I, I wanted to ask you and we'll open it up to members here a second. You received, um, you received the ballot petitions and did you get a, did you get a copy of the packet before you sat down? Do you have a we have a Packet that we could get for them, please. And they're going to bring you a packet and I want you to take a look through it, um. If you'll find the ones that say Saline County on them or the county Saline on them. Flipping through there, it should. The one with the affidavits, not the affidavit, but the actual signature sign-in sheets. They've got redacted information on them. Just pick one that's Sala County doesn't think there's 2 or 3 in there. Y'all find them. OK. So my question, first of all, we stated a while ago, date of birth has been redacted by our staff because that's our policy not to release that information in a public format, but down in the bottom left hand corner you'll find that there's information that is redacted. The copies that you're looking at, um, would you verify and testify that these are not originals, I know statement of fact, they're not originals, but they're copies. And can you, can you verify that those are copies and that those look like, um, sheets that you received. Yes, there are copies. Of the original. OK, and the originals are kept where in our vault in the clerk's office locked in a metal cabinet. OK. And with regards to these signatures, who was it that presented them to you, um, and at what time did they present them to you? Do you remember? Um, it was Tuesday, August 6th, like late in the afternoon, and it was, uh, Laurie Justice, Stephanie Johnson, and then a gentleman with them that did not identify himself. OK, so these were presented to you on August 6th. OK. Did you notice if any of them had redaction on them when they were presented to you? Were they presented to you with redactions on them, OK. All right. Um, Is OK. Any, any questions from members? So when they were presented to you, they were presented you with redactions. You've got them in, you got them locked up now, and these are copies of the original, Chris. Yes sir. All right. You hang around a little bit, maybe some follow up questions any right now representative. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is that a common practice? To have redaction on. No, ma'am, it is not. OK, thank you so much. OK. Any other questions from members? All right, thank you y'all. Let me stick around if you mean. Is Stephanie Johnson in the room? And is Laurie justice in the room and I'm gonna tell you, um, just a call in cases Stephanie Johnson in the room? OK. Uh, make a note, Stephanie Johnson is not in the room. Laurie Justice. Lord Justice in the room. OK, make a note, uh, Laurie Justice is not in the room either. Leslie, would you please name a title for the record, please. I'm Leslie Bellamy. I'm the director of elections for the Arkansas Secretary of State's office. OK, would you please stand and we'll swear you in, please. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. All right, thank you. You've heard testimony. Um, is it under your jurisdiction or you knowledgeable of the process of notary and notary publics. Secretary of State's office. It's not particular, my particular division, but I am familiar with the laws that are applicable to it. If you're, if you're knowledgeable, what is the law say, um, with regards to you heard everything, uh, that was said before. Is there anything you'd like to add to the testimony of the two notaries that were here before or anything, uh, that you'd like to just enlighten us about. Well, I think that one thing I want to just clarify is that it's not a notary's job or responsibility to check the address of the individual. There's simply notarizing that the individual is who they say they are. That's why the photo ID is crucial to that. Uh, it's, they're probably not even going to. To pay attention to a residential address because that's not their. Uh, job is the notary to do that. The residential address being, uh, in compliance with Arkansas law would be the sponsor of the petition's responsibility. OK. Members have any questions? General Barry. So you're correct me if I'm wrong, so you're understanding is that. Paid canvassers have to be, uh, residents of the state of Arkansas, is that correct? the initiatives, that's how, that's the laws that we're under and it's my understanding that it would be applicable to the county laws as well. OK, so Uh, this, I don't know if you've seen the social media ad uh where they were actually hiring says non-Arkansas residents, so this would not be in compliance with the law as you understand it, is that correct? No, sir. Thank you. The law says that notaries aren't, I think it says strongly encouraged to keep logbooks, um, you know, one thing this is. At least for my part, a little bit enlightening about is in a situation like we're having today without the address being in the logbook, is that advantage, disadvantage is there, do you see any value to why an address might be required in the logbook or anything else for that matter that could help establish if somebody presented false ID came out later. You want to talk about that for a second. Yeah, I can see where the logbooks might want that information, especially if you're doing an initiative and petitions, especially. the statewide level, we rarely do one that's not, uh, a, a suit of some sort filed on it, so the logbooks for the notaries would be very helpful in that instance if it was a canvasser issue. OK, uh, representative Hooten. Is the money. Was one, OK. Thank you. I didn't hear you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Bellamy, um, would you state that mark again that you made about the responsibility of the notaries, it's not their responsibility.nsibility to make sure that I'm Leslie Bellamy as I'm signing. It's not their responsibility to see, make sure that my residence is what I say it is. The notaries are only responsible for the person. And, um, identity. OK, who's responsibility is, let me ask Ms Fault this. I, hold on a second. Hey, uh, Representative Wootton address your question, chair, and then, then I'll defer to well is, is this Senate Bill 346, is that an act now? Or do they amend it? Is that what we did? It it is a current act that was amended. Bellamy, whose responsibility is it then to be sure that the canvasser is a resident of the state of Arkansas or his domicile here. The hiring company that the sponsor uses, which would be the what we call the canvasser company or the sponsor themselves should make sure that they're, uh, employees are meeting the standards set by Arkansas law does it state in the law that the notaries do not have to enforce the law or have a responsibility. It would only state that in law it wouldn't be in the petition law. It's not in here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You're welcome Representative. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Ms. Bellamy in, in 79103, it talks about, uh, the penalty for falsification. It says a person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of the state. What, what is the penalty for someone who violates that. Statute I'm not sure what the penalty would be. Uh, it would. If we were to find that as far as the state petitions, we would refer it for prosecution and then the penalty phase, I suppose would be up to whichever judge ruled on it, but it would be considered, you know, against the law, uh, if you fraudulently do it and know that you're giving wrong information, uh, I would think in some respects that would be um. Consistent with perjury. So, I'm looking at the rest of the statute. It looks like. It looks like there are. Penalties for, and I'm reading this in real time, it looks like there are penalties for a canvasser, a notary, and a sponsor. Um, You, you sort of described that as an act of fraud or deception, um. under your understanding of that, do you think that would, would that qualify as an infamous crime under the Arkansas, under Arkansas statute in the Arkansas constitution. In my mind, yes, if they knowingly, uh, were, you know. Putting the wrong address to receive their check for the canvassing that would be fraud. OK, thank you. Representing painter Thank you, Mr. Chair. How are you today? I'm good. How are you? I'm doing all right. Uh, on these affidavits that we have in our hand here and I, and I'm just questioning trying to understand all this myself. Would it be common practice or have you seen this before, that people, all these dozens of people that supposedly live at this address. Must have traveled to Oklahoma, Arizona, uh, California, and so forth because that's where the notary is at. Have you seen other affidavits and mass petitions like this from other states or it's just trying to cover something up. No, sir, that would not be common practice, uh, and if they were to come to the state level, uh, with that same address and in any kind of redactions, we would, uh, kick that back out and call that entire page. So I just want to make sure for the record, this is not common practice, correct? No, representative, it's not. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Senator Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just looking a little bit ahead in the packet looks like we're going to break apart a little bit about domicile and residence. And just looking at, at a comment made in the statute, a person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of the state. Based on some of the documentation in the packet is, are we saying that incorrectly? Should we say they should be domiciled in the state possibly legislation might need to be changed to say domicile, the residency, um, from what I've heard from other lawyers could be construed as to where you're living at the time. I don't I think the intent of the law, uh, was to be that the residency be a hotel in Conway, Arkansas. And that's not how we would look at it if we were doing state petitions. So as, as a registered voter. There's a, there's a statutes, and I, I didn't go dig around because maybe you'll know off the top of your head as a registered voter, do I have to be a resident in the area that I live, or do I need to be a domiciled in the area which I live registration is domicile. OK. Thank you. I don't know that you want answers or you should answer it so you can defer. But if these were presented. Because through the county process they're submitted to the county clerk. Correct. Yes, sir. But to a statewide initiative they're presented to you. Yes, sir. Don't answer if you want to. Would these, would, how would these have been treated had they been presented to you in a redacted form or how. How would they have been? Would they have been considered Even if they weren't redacted without a state addresses. I would have accepted the petition in whole and then had my staff call the pages with redactions. The main reason I would have had the staff pull those is the redaction has no initial, no date, no reason. And that's why we would have kicked those out and I would have accepted the pages that did not have redactions. Is there precedents in law that that would have been the case that you feel, or maybe you don't want to answer that, and that's OK, dodge if you want, but no, I don't, I don't mind. Uh, in fact, there is some case law that holds up how, that's our normal practice on the statewide petitions if something isn't right, we call the entire page and then the sponsor can come back and prove to us why we should put it back in or the court tells us to put it back in. But that is. Our normal practice. You have a history of that? I mean, if you had to have experiences where, um, forms have been presented to you out of state addresses prior, maybe even to change in the law, uh, but since the law where you've got some history to show that's what you found or that's just what you would do. That has never been, uh, they've never been submitted like that to us, but yes, if they were now, that would be my standard of practice is to have my staff call those pages. So historically you don't have any recollection of, of or sheets with signatures having out of state addresses on them being presented, not before the law was changed and and so I wouldn't really have any basis for that, but we have never had anything turned in in this fashion with hotel addresses. Uh, since I've been director. Any other questions from members? Alright Hang around if you can for a minute, please. Oh, wait a minute, uh, represented. Evans The chair, um, it may be a question for, for you as chair or, or Ms. Bellamy, but. The the notaries made mention as they were asked that when they notarize these forms. Even though we know because we have copies of these forms and some of them were from out of state. The affidavits were from out of state. We clarified that that's not their responsibility to verify that. It's just to verify that the person standing in front of them has the ID to match that. They also stated that when they, they did their notary seal on these that they had not been reacted. And all of the addresses on the red action. Go to a hotel in Conway. So my question, do we know who Who did the red acting and who wrote in the name of the hotel in Conway. When did that happen? Did that Who Where did that come from? I think that's part of what we're trying to find out. OK, I don't have that answer. OK, thank you. Thank you. Like, well, one more question. Based on what Speaker elect said, and I think this was asked by this. Want to make sure If a notary is presented document. And that document is unredacted. And then it's redacted after. That notary signs it. Violation of law. I'm not sure I can correctly answer that. I'm not a lawyer, but I would, um. If, if you don't. I don't want you to say anything you don't know that you think it's unethical at least. Any questions? All right. Um, next up, thank you. All right. Clint Lancaster. All right, good afternoon, Clint. If you would please push the button and name title for the record, please. I'm Clint Lancaster. I'm an attorney in Arkansas, and, uh, I need to put you under oath, please. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give be the truth, the whole truth, nothing too much the truth of God. Absolutely. All right, thank you, Clint, if you would. Uh, some questions first of all, um, you just heard what Speaker-elect Evans said as far as reduction of the signatures on the form, can you shed any light on that? Unfortunately, that's covered by the attorney-client privilege doctrine. OK. All right. Um, So let me go through and just a serious question. When you filed a lawsuits, they had out of state addresses of some of the canvas surgeons, some of the counties, but then when it got down to Sling County, maybe one after, I can't remember, but for sure Saline County. Uh, those petitions had redactions on them. What would be the need to change? From one county's lawsuit to another that they would all of a sudden show up in a county being redacted. My, my understanding and what I understood the facts to be was they put the wrong address on their affidavits. Um, it goes back to that distinction between residency and domicile, and that's why they put their, like the affidavit said, they put the address of their domicile down instead of their residences. So we sent letters out to everybody out of state members. You got that in your packet. C4. And have you got the packet? I do. Yes, sure. I've I've, I've looked at it already. I know what you're talking about. All right. So we sent this letter out to everybody that is a uh from out of state and, and maybe I should ask this question. I don't know that there's any denial and, and I mean for public record transparency, I was sitting in the courtroom when we were in Sly County, and this was not allowed into evidence. Is that correct? Thanks to a very astute objection, yes. um. So I mean this is, do you know who Joshua James is? No, sir, I do not. Never had any affiliation connection contact, anything with them? Never heard of him until that day in Saline County. So he never saw this before then. Never saw that before then. Why would there be an objection to introduce it then? Well, because it was bad for my case and I didn't want it to come into evidence. What would be bad about it? Well, it seems to indicate that maybe they are confused about whether they are residents or not. The way the process works is. The affidavit is given prima facie verity. Once that happens, the burden shifts back to the person challenging it to prove that they're not residents. That document would have called that into question, and he didn't have anyone there to authenticate it, so I objected to it as hearsay. Do you know One question I wanna go to members. Do you know, um, So all these people came in from out of state. How were they informed to change their address? How were they educated? They put the wrong address down. Well, I got a call from my client and they were saying that some counties were rejecting them for having an out of state address and uh it was essentially, why didn't they put their Arkansas address on there. The, the case law is very, the definition of residency, it varies upon the context in which, uh, the Supreme Court has defined it. And so our position was that the Supreme Court defined it as being physically present in the. State and that I can't think of the State v. Jernigan is the case. And so they had been present in Arkansas at that hotel room and the Supreme Court has said you can have a, a hotel room can be your residence. And so the idea was to correct that to put down their residents and not their domicile. Did the courts align with you in that argument? Um, only one. OK. All right. And we're going to go to Senator Disney. And I'm, I'm sorry, and maybe I don't know. Who do, who do you represent? I, I should know that, I guess by looking at the are you talking about in in this particular matter? Yeah, yeah, you said you were a starting client, attorney privilege and not answering the question, who you asserting it for? The Arkansas voter integrity Initiative. Actually, I believe it's the America voter integrity Initiative now. The American. Now where are they based out of? They're based out of Arkansas, based out of Arkansas, who is the president of the organization or what's the, I don't know, I don't know anything about the can you read a little bit about it? Sure, so it was a formed Um, I want to say a couple of years ago, it's a 501c4, which is a type of public interest charity type public interest group that can do some education and advocacy. And it supports election integrity causes across the United States. For example, it wrapped up two recall campaigns in Wisconsin, recall Boss and attempt to recall the, uh, Speaker of the Assembly, and then that matter, that measure failed to get sufficient votes and they went back and got 2 votes a 2nd time in racing recall, this Arkansas group did that. This Arkansas group supported that. Yes, there was a, so the way it works in Wisconsin is like, I can't go up there and try to recall anybody because I'm not a Wisconsin resident and I'm not registered to vote there. But there were a large number of people in Representative Voss's district that were unhappy with him. And when they asked for support, we provide it or it provided it. Got you. All right, and so is that 501c4 the same one that, that's who does the hiring for the canvassers. I, I, I don't know who did the hiring on the campus or I don't know who paid the canvas. I don't know. The canvassers. So how would that be a client turning privileges if the attorney, I mean, how is that related to you at all? The question was, uh, how do you know how those redactions got on the affidavits. Yeah, how I know that is only because of what my client told me. But why is your client involved if they didn't do the actual hiring or I mean, how was your client involved with the canvassers then? You know, I don't know for sure exactly how they were involved. I believe that they were supporting the canvassers and providing forms and things of that nature, but the full extent of it is not something that I have actual knowledge of. I would actually be guessing. So the $1200 or what is it $1250 that's on the fly. That, that's the same group. I, I don't know. I'm, I'm, I most likely it is, but I don't, I don't know for sure. So Senator, what happens is things go south and then people call me and they want me to fix it. Well, how long have you been employed by them then? I since their inception. This this organization something went wrong you've been employed. Yes, before something went wrong. So for example, we, uh, AVII attempted to support and run a statewide ballot measure to change absentee voting and paper ballot and bring paper ballots in. And I drafted both those ballot measures, um, had a very public dispute with the Attorney General and lost an original jurisdiction case in the Supreme Court earlier this year. But as far as you think, I'm trying to make sure I understand what you said. This group that hired the, uh, ballot gatherers. Or signature gatherers. That is the same group or not the same group? I would, I would assume so, but I don't know for sure. OK. All right, um. So that's how you would be asserting a client attorney privileges because they may be associated with the signature gas, which ultimately are the ones that had to redact his statement for what they submitted. So to be clear, I'm only asserting it in like on a question by question basis. And the question of do you know how those redactions got there, the only way I know that is because of what I was told by my client, and that's why it's covered. As far as how they got paid or who paid them, who recruited them. I, I don't know. I mean, I would, I come in on the back end generally. Well, you were on the front end though, you were just saying I was on the front end because you had to have a lawyer, but, um, when the actual submission of these petitions to the 9 different counties, that happened, um, I wasn't involved in that. I only got involved in that when things, uh, started, you know, not working out in our favor. OK. And then can we pull that case, um, if you don't mind, can you restate that Jernigan v. Jernigan. Yes, I, I can pull up a citation for you if you like. That'll work and on the, all right, so it's a 501c4. We don't know if they hired or did not hire. We don't really know where the cameras came from. We don't know who did the advertising or at least you don't. Is there anyone from the organization here? Not today. OK. Have they been asked to come? Maybe I missed that. They have not. OK, all right. That'll work. Thank you. Uh, Senator Dismay the, uh, citation on that state region, uh, Jernigan is 2011 Arc 487. I guess and I'll go to the next mayor with a question of trying to get my mind around is you represent them, you took your client attorney privilege on the first one. But yet on all these other things. Did all that Come from your attorney did all that come from your client that you're able to provide the answers to Senator Dismay just then. Um, so, um, maybe I can try to explain this. The doctrine is covered by the client's communications. And so if I have knowledge that I've gathered outside of the communications, that's not covered. But if it's information that comes. So for example, if I was your attorney and you said, hey, uh, Clint, I got to tell you, you know, these redactions got on there because my neighbor did it and, and redacted it, but don't tell anybody. Right, or even if you don't have to say, don't tell anybody, just the mere fact that you said that to me in an official capacity as an attorney invokes the privilege. Mm So it's not that we don't know who did it. It's not that we don't know it was done. We just had to find out who did it. You, you have to find that out through someone other than me. Representative Ray OK. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Some of these questions may just be a different variation of what was asked before, but the, the letter that we have here is C5 that you wrote, the letter you wrote here. From, uh, Read a letter regarding residency of canvassers. You wrote that letter on behalf of this AVII group. I wrote the letter on behalf of the persons who submitted it to the county clerks at the request of AVII. OK, so understand that AVII can't bring a ballot measure in a countywide level. You can only have a taxpayer and I think resident of the county. So, sure, so I, I. I have to presume it was. A ballot committee of some sort that brought The gathered the petitions and brought them to the clerks. I, I don't know, uh, Representative Ray, I just know that this was what I was handed as had been given to the clerks. You don't know if there was a ballot committee that was gathering these. I don't know that. I don't, I, I, my job is just to be a lawyer. OK. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, when I'm finished, or when, when the questions for this witness are done, it may be beneficial to bring the county clerk back up from Saline County if he's still here, because some of these questions may, they may be able to answer, but on, on this, I read, I read Mr. Lancaster. I read your, uh, your letter here on the distinctions between residency and domicile. So, Let me ask you, if my, if my in-laws who are domiciled in Ohio, come and stay at my house for a week to watch my daughter's softball game or my son's soccer game. Are they residents of Arkansas? It's a, jeez, I hate sounding like a lawyer on this, but it depends on how you're defining them in what context. So in an election context, the Supreme Court has said physically present. In a tax context, it's set a length of time. And so, well, I'll give you, I'll give you the context. The context would be. 79103. Where it says. A person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of the state. I don't really care about where somebody pays taxes for the purposes of this conversation today. So my understanding is if your in-laws had come to Arkansas for a week and resided at your home while they canvassed for signatures as the Supreme Court has defined resident in election context, yes, they would be residents. OK, so it's your assertion that anybody who visits Arkansas. Basically, for any length of time. To gather signatures as a resident. No, that's not, that's not, it could be technically possible because the Supreme Court has said this means physically present in the state or domicile in the state. So it, it maybe I wouldn't make that argument that they were residents and in fact in Saline County, uh, Judge Farmer said that, well, it's like them being residents of Texarkana, Texas. They came over to the Arkansas side, got some signatures, and went home at night to the Texas side. He and I would agree that in that situation, they would Not be residents, but if they come and live in a hotel room for 1 to 7 weeks. I think they would be residents, so if, uh, if, if, if someone who lives in Arizona or Texas or Nebraska or California. Comes to Arkansas and lives in a hotel for a week. To gather signatures, it's your assertion that that person is a resident of the state of Arkansas. Pursuant to State v. Jernigan, yes, sir. So basically what you're saying is the only possible way that someone could ever violate this statute as if they were a resident of a different state, came over during the day. Gathered signatures and then returned home to their resident state that evening. That's not the only way they could collect signatures, maybe remotely or some other way in the modern era, it's kind of, there's a lot of different ways to do it, but my understanding is the public policy behind this law is that the person is in Arkansas and sees the signatures get witnessed. Now, as I pointed out to, um, a number of courts, whether or not you believe it or not, the Supreme Court of Arkansas says that you know. of every single decision it is made and you're free to change the law. And so I, you know, I have a feeling that the law is about to get changed to make this residency requirement more more uh stringent, but, uh, you know, you, you could. Be unhappy with me all you want. My job is to find loopholes and exploit them. Look, I'm not unhappy with you. I don't agree with, uh, your reasoning here, um, it sounds like the. Group that you represent has very likely violated the law in this instance, in my opinion, and, um, they most certainly have violated the spirit of the law. And so, um, Mr. Chair, I don't know. Uh, if it sounds, uh, I think we're gonna have to probably have. Another meeting on this given that so many people who were asked to show up, um, thought it unnecessary to show up, but when we do reconvene on this subject matter, I, I think the only way that we can possibly get answers to the questions about what has happened related to these signatures and the and the canvassing is if individuals from the ballot committee that are gathering, that were gathering the signatures were asked to come in and answer questions. And Representative Ray, may I just add that, um, laws, they don't have spirits, that's something the Court has said, but I also want to say that it's an absolute pleasure to be here and see all of you today. Do you, uh, And uh. So in all your discussion. Did you ever ask anybody the question? Why did you redact? And who redacted them because the signature, the handwriting on the redactions is definitely not the handwriting of the person who signed them originally. Uh, Well, yes, I'll say yes, the question was asked, but the answer would be again covered by the attorney-client privilege doctrine. Did, so you did ask him. Well, yes, I have a, I have a duty as an attorney to like, you know, when I see something to make sure I get a lot of leeway and like how I can use that, but I can't just, you know, be completely unaware of redactions and not be like, hey, what's up with this? OK, uh, who's next? Oh, wait a minute, General Barry, sorry. So I have a cup thing, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. So, um, There are a number of these paid canvassers that got paid $1200 a week. OK. And They got paid $1200 a week because they were non-residents of Arkansas. Residents of Arkansas got paid $1000. The ones that came from Arizona and Texas they got paid $1200 because they were non-residents. So is that following state law? I, I, so, um, First off, I don't know that for sure. I, but I'm gonna assume that if you're saying it, and I'm gonna assume it's true, does that follow state law? It follows state law if they become a resident of Arkansas, but they were hired, they're paying residents $1000 so I would be curious exactly how many of those folks from Arizona and Texas were paid $1200 a week because they admitted that they were non-residents of the state of Arkansas. So anyway, I know you can't answer that question, so I'll go on to what is the address of the organization that you represent? The Arkansas, the address here in Arkansas. I'd have to look it up, but I believe it's on the Secretary of State's website. Would you like for me to look that up real quick? I'd, I'd be curious and, and your client, uh, is. His address the same? Um, I don't know if it's the same, but I can tell you the address Um, is it general or representative? You can call me whatever you want just either way, I, I'll pick one of those two, so the, uh, represented the, uh, address is a post office box in Conway, Arkansas. That's the principal's address. The registered agent is, uh, Colonel Conrad Reynolds, and it shows that the address of 18 Weston Drive in Conway. Um, it shows that the officers are Colonel Conrad Reynolds, Donnie Scroggins, who is an Individual from, uh, up north in what it's not Prairie County, it's one of those north of Jonesboro. Um, and then John Bailey from Little Rock is a director. OK. Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster. Um, do you know how long they stayed at the motel? No Not without telling you what my client said. OK. OK. Um, Next, we got on the list. Representative Wooton. Then we're gonna send her this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. clarification from the chair. Does absolutely qualify as yes. Or I do. When you're swearing in a witness. Would you, would you ask me that again, Representative Wooton, please, my question is, the witness responded absolutely. Does that mean that that's yes, I do, or I may. What does that mean? If you're referring to this witness here and Clint you swore to uphold the truth, correct? So what I, I'll be clear, I understand the term is sometimes didn't answer yes or no. Do you intend to tell the truth? Yes, sir. I, I am, I am intending to tell the should have answered yes, in my opinion, my humble opinion. My question is, how, how does someone become confused about their address and their residence. How, how, how does that happen? Uh, so Representative Wooten, just to be clear, I want to make clear that I have told the truth to, gave a truthful answer to every question that was asked whether you were telling the truth. I questioned whether absolutely qualified. My question of you is how do you become confused about a residency. Well, sir, I believe it's, uh, residency and domicile are defined differently under Arkansas, but I'm asking you, you. Use the word residency. How does someone become confused about where they live and did they know the law stated they had to be a residents, and you said they became confused. What did they become confused about or how they, my understanding is they confused their residency with their domicile. You can have many residents. I know that I domicile is one residency could be many. So, but how does the they become confused about living in Oklahoma and Arizona and being in Arkansas and collecting signatures. How do they become confused, you know, Representative Wooton, I've not spoken to a single canvasser, so I don't know exactly how they became confused, but how come Mr. John James, whose signature is on one of the ads on one of the petitions circulated an ad in the paper, the Arkansas paper ballot initiative is in need of 15 to 20 full time signatures. Arkansas residents will be paid 1000 out of state residents to be paid $1200 and then. To top it off, he says, the hotel suite is covered. So that right there, that's an admission that they're coming into the state to violate the law, is it not? Actually, no, because you may, you may be surprised to learn that a number of paid canvassers come to Arkansas for the purpose of canvassing and they stay in an Airbnb or a hotel and they get signatures and when they're done, they leave. That they're following the intent, the intent of the you know it and I know it. The intent of the law were for them to be a residence of Clarendon, Arkansas, of Dermont or somewhere in this state on a permanent basis and staying at 8:20 Dean Road or Dean Drive in Conway, Arkansas, which is the home motel is not being a President of the state of Arkansas. Well, if you tell me that's what the intent was, I, I, the intent is not something that's fleshed out in the law. And so I don't, if the spirit of the law is to have someone that's been here for 45 days, it, it, that has to be written in the statute for it to be applicable guarantee you it will be now. I bet it will. Yeah, yeah, thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster. OK, uh, send this menu up. Thank you, just a couple of questions on your client attorney privilege, I guess. Who, who you were exercising that for. I'm exercising it for AVII's the individual corporate officer is Colonel Conrad Reynolds, um, Mr. John Bailey, the board of directors, your corporate office is that protected I I don't think it would be. No, I don't think it would be. I had a conversation with Colonel Reynolds. OK, Colonel Reynolds. All right. And then as far as, I mean, I understand you don't know who paid the canvasser, but who should we ask or who should we talk about who paid the canvassers. I, I don't know. I mean, you could probably ask Colonel Reynolds. I, I would assume that maybe he would know, um, Laurie Justice who decided to ignore your very kind invitation, uh, would know as well because she was a paid canvasser. And, and one of the things, and you may know this or not, I'm, I'm, again, I'm not an attorney. So I just, I'm looking at this, this, this opinion is based on 1420 or 42 201C1. Uh, in 2009, which that statute has changed. I'm not sure when that's changed, I believe, but if you read C1. The only thing that see, which is what this is all founded on. Could you tell me that that citation again, well, if you look at your, yeah, so this whole ruling is based on 42 201 or 1442, 201C1. Are you talking about leathers, this one? Uh, I'm talking about your state versus Jernigan relying on this. I'm with you now and then I've got one other question about that, but if you read that, it is purely C1, which it's referencing is purely about whether or not you can hold an elected office or not. It's not got anything else to do with votes or any, I mean, like literally, I can read it and it also references. And makes it take into account any other items in state law that would have to do with residency. So at the end of the day, like, that's not what we're talking about. I, I guess what I would ask is. You know, this has been an issue in multiple jurisdictions. And then all only one of them accepted, I guess, the Jernigan argument. Is that correct? I'd have to, I'd have to look at, uh, the Westlaw's Key site to tell you. Um, I don't know. I know that it is the only case I'm aware of where the Arkansas Supreme Court has defined residency in the conduct. They don't. They, they only define it when I even read this opinion, and again, I'm not, this isn't my wheelhouse, but when I read it, it is strictly about the eligibility to be able to run for office and there's a lot of facts that are stated in this case. Where they're allowing residency to be determined by the fact that you had a rental agreement, that he had a mattress in the floor, that he had all kinds of different, it's a very, I, I would just, but when I'm, my real question is, so, What was the reason that you were not successful in other jurisdictions, so we've only been successful one. I'm assuming is that Cleveland County Independence in Caleia, which is the same, same district, same judge. OK, uh, Is it this that they relied on? Not all the time. Some of them said that the ballot title when popular name were misleading. Some a couple of them said that they weren't residents. Um, I think 3 of them said that, so they, but they didn't rely so I just don't want anyone to be confused in the room. Because in the room, there were other district judges or whoever is involved in, I don't know how it all works, but whoever is involved essentially said we don't buy that this is applicable to this particular case, because again, if you just read the. Your language of State the. Jernigan. I mean, it's, it's about whether or not you have the ability to hold an office. Um, and so other district judges have said or whoever, have said that now that we don't think that that's a legitimate argument. So to state that we need to fix something may or may not be true, that would be if someone appeals. Uh, and then we would have a case saw that then we could rely back on if, depending on how that ruling occurred. Is that fair? Well, so Senator Disman, let me just be as candid with you as I can. If this legislature Does not beef up the term resident in in in uh, in its statute, you're going to see more of this because the statewide, keep in mind the statewide measures, the statewide requirements do not apply to the county. And so the all those hoop jumping you have to do, you don't do. And so, but I think that the best thing, the legislature could do is be very clear about what it means by a duty to provide an interpretation if we need to provide one to the courts for what seems to be There's obviously a conflict in the courts right now on whether or not they agree with your position that Jernigan takes care of and creates this big ambiguous argument for who's a resident and who's not, but some have said one thing, some have said another, depending on I'd have to read each one of the, you know, the rulings to find out, but, but as far as we're in this room, I would just tell you that we can't say that Jernigan definitively says that this, these people are residents because that's not what's happened in various courts. They have disagreed with each other, and the only way to Get to a solution to that would be up for us to change the law or for this to rise up and be appealed and, you know, and, and actually create case law. I believe that's how it works. So and I can provide some clarifying, maybe some clarification or some guidance on that. I agree with you that Jernigan is not like on all fours with what we're saying is a residents, our position was it is the closest thing we had. And I understand that. I'm not, you, you get paid to go try to find a little snippet here that we can apply and, and, and, and develop a narrative out of and you've done that. I'm. But not all courts agreed with that narrative. Some agreed and some didn't. And so to be also kind of further that, the rulings of the circuit courts are not binding. It only it only becomes binding when it comes out of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. So there's not like the ambiguity exists and we are not appealing any of the ones where we lost on residency. I wouldn't either, right, thanks, because it would actually, if there was an appeal, have an impact on the ones that you were or the, the Independence and Cleveland where you're successful if it were opposing. And so also, I don't know if the body is aware, but Independence County did file an appeal. And so it was very nuanced Independence County rejected on misleading ballot title because we use no out of state canvassers in that county. In Cleburne County didn't find that the ballot title was misleading, but that they weren't residents. And so Independence County Court voted to appeal to the Supreme Court. Um, Daniel Haney, who I went to law school with, very aptly caught. that you have to expedite that. And so it's supposed to be decided by the end of October or you've got to get a ruling from the Supreme Court by election day or it's moot. And so, um, it's going up now. I'm trying as hard as I can to get it thrown out of court. But we'll see what happens. Yeah, but, but again, this is not. It's not apples to apples for certain. I agree. And maybe you can apply it, maybe you can't, but like the courts are going to have to tell us that or we would have to change that legislatively, and the courts could say one thing and we come back and say completely different. Like we're not bound by any of that as y'all are well aware to fix it before it can get worked through it as a peel. It will be a lot easier. OK, let's go to Senator Bryant. Uh, you still want it. He got you. All right, um. Holy cow, uh, let's go to, we're back to give you the lineup Representative Ray painter bought and Carolyn Brown all representatives, go ahead, Representative Ray. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so, Mr. Lancaster. Um, Was your client the one that was Paying the signature gatherers for this effort. I don't, I don't know that. I haven't, I didn't ask, he didn't tell me. I, I didn't, wasn't part of my deal. So they would have. Does it stand to reason that they would either, your client would either have to be paying the canvassers to gather the signatures or they would have had to. Ask you to perform legal work because they were. Supportive of the outcome. Of the ballot issue. Is that, is that fair? Could you that I perhaps, yeah, 11 of two things seems to have to be true. Either your client was paying the canvassers to gather the signatures for this effort, or they weren't paying the canvassers, and they, and, and your client just had an interest, a rooting interest in the ballot issue and wanted you to perform legal work to help that. Yeah, I think, uh, so as long as you're not saying the legal work related to a ballot, uh, well, yes, I think what you're saying is true. It has to. Be one of those, or both. I mean, I, I don't know. You don't know. No, I don't know. OK. So, um, It sounds like you're saying you were not paid by a ballot committee to do this legal work. You were paid by This nonprofit organization that you represent. Uh, yeah, I, I think, um, I think I'm gonna decline to answer that one. OK, let me, let me rephrase that question then. Were you paid by a ballot committee? To do this work. Again, I am not comfortable answering questions about how my law firm is paid. Expenditures of a ballot committee if they're uh above and beyond $500 have to be disclosed publicly in campaign finance filing. So if you were paid by a ballot committee, then that would be a matter of public record. I'm sure you would be comfortable answering. Or you could look it up, I suppose, but I, I am not comfortable talking about how my law firm gets paid. Fair enough, fair enough. Um. OK, um, My next question is to the chairman. Is, is there anyone here today from the Arkansas Ethics Commission that could answer questions related to ballot committees. Actually, no, we didn't felt the agenda would be pretty full we can if we come back again, we can, we may want to ask them to just have somebody here if we discuss this issue in the future because some of these questions do touch on that area. Um, my last question is just, you know, have you ever advised anyone? Mr. Lancaster to redact the, their home address from one of these petitions and replace it with the address of the hotel where they're staying. You're asking me if I told my client something which would be covered by the attorney-client privilege doctrine. I'm just asking if you ever told anyone. That it is OK for them to redact their home address and replace it with the address of a hotel where they're staying. Because you seem to, you seem to have no problem defending that legal position in your letter. Have you ever advised someone to do that? I'm gonna stick with the attorney-client privilege doctrine. What I say to people, even in a hypothetical sense that you could pull out as possibly being a statement related to this case is clearly covered. OK, I think you've answered my question. Thank you. Um, Clint, let me ask you, do you think the language would be clear based on the conversation and what Senator Dismay was conversing with you about if the canvasser was required to be a registered voter in the state of Arkansas. Do you think this would help clear up this matter? Yes, uh, Senator Hammer, I do, but you know, if I'm giving, uh, my most honest testimony here, what I think is really better is you say, register to vote and has been a resident of Arkansas for however many months you want, 6 months, 12 months, because if you're trying to, it sounds to me like what you're trying to do is get rid of paid canvassers that are not Arkansas residents. I think Representative Vaut, I heard her say that. And so the way you do that is you put a a or you put a time limit on there. I can like. A continuous residence for six months has an Arkansas driver's license, um, paid taxes in Arkansas, you know, of some nature, because you can pay taxes if you have a vacation home in Arkansas, but you live in Colorado, you know, you have to pay property taxes on your duck club in Stuttgart. So those are the kind of, if I have found that the more direct language and the more to the point the legislature can be, the more clear it is. And for the record, at least the chair's position and I think I might. Speak for majority if not all legislators, what we're, what we're trying to do is determine, um, not necessarily get rid of paid canvassers. It's to make sure those that canvas are doing it according to the law and that anybody that has done anything along the journey, including reduction, uh, will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. That's part of what this platform's all about today as well as dressing an area that's got some gray in it that hopefully we can get to a black and white arrangement either sooner than later. So, uh. With that, um, who's up next. Representative V. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna do a little bit different. So, I disagree with the residency thing. I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree with that, um, because that is not the intent of what we had in mind. We don't mind Arkansas, um, Citizens being paid canvassers. That's not the issue with us. That's not an issue. But what I will do is thank you for bringing to our attention where we have a wormhole that we need to fix, and I can absolutely promise you there will be legislation to fix that. So thank you. I foresaw that legislation coming when I got my nice invitation. General Barry, I just got, I got answered myself. Thank you. OK, um. Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Lancaster, um, just clarify something for me. I don't know that it's all that material, but I believe, uh, my recollection is that you said you had nothing to do with hiring the canvassers. Yeah, I don't know anything about it other than what I've learned subsequently. OK, but when you were responding to Senator Dismay. You said, we hired the out of state canvassers. So, If you had nothing to do with hiring them, what does your comment we hired the out of state canvassers. I mean, what's, I mean, they don't seem to jibe. So sometimes as lawyers we like to think we have little mouses in mice in our pocket, and we kind of refer to, uh, our statement is being that of our clients. So when I say we, what I mean is AVII. I didn't, I, I might, I'm AI's attorney, so, uh, their interest in mind are seen as kind of aligned. And so when I say. We, I'm not meaning me personally, I meant my client in that situation. So it means that you had no awareness. Correct. I had, I had no awareness. I mean, I, I had awareness that there were possibly paid canvassers coming in, but I didn't, I didn't really, uh, so I drafted this this ballot measure, and I got it formatted up in a way that I believe the county clerks would accept and I handed it off to my client. And my client comes back, uh, later and says, hey, we've got, we've submitted them and we have problems and that That's when I first hear, OK, now I know you've got paid canvassers and now I, I became aware of this uh Facebook post it literally in Saline County's circuit courtroom. And, uh, and so I think that, uh, uh, that's, that's the extent of my knowledge. Even sitting here today, that's still the extent of my knowledge. I'm assuming, and I don't know for sure that the ones on the corrective affidavits that had an out of state notary were domiciled out of state. That kind of makes sense to me, which would indicate they came to. Arkansas for the purpose of canvassing, but I don't, I haven't sat down and. It hasn't been an issue until no one's, let me put it this way, no one's asked me the questions that this body has asked me about paid canvassers until today. Thank you. Representative. OK, when he gets back. So to Representative Ray gets back in his chair, let me ask you a few questions and unless somebody lights up our board's clear, um, First one is Then what your, what's your testimony as far as any knowledge of knowing who instructed who to redact the signatures on the signature sheets. My knowledge of that is, again, uh, it would be statements between my client and I that I don't feel like the law allows me to share. OK, and then. Um, The affidavits that are in the packet shifting gears a second. Does this C3? That is C3, yes, uh-huh, that's a list of all the. Um, out of state canvassers, which incidentally members just for the record, we sent them the letter on September 20th. It's on C4 asking for some of the basic information as of, uh, the beginning of this meeting we've received no response to any. Of those, uh, To any of those questions from any of the out of state canvassers, um, Clint, do you, do you know if anybody advised any of the out of state canvassers not to respond to the request of the letter from JPR committee. I do not know if anybody has advised them to ignore this committee, but I will tell you with all certainty that I did not advise them. I did not advise anybody who failed to show up not to come. I think that as hard as this, as this body in this legislature works for the people of Arkansas, the people have at least the common courtesy to show up and answer questions. So I, I think it's appalling that people don't show up, um, and I think that, I think that if someone told them not to respond, that would probably be equally appalling, but I know that it was not me, OK? And on the affidavits that were sent, do you know who prepared the affidavits and sent them. I prepared the affidavits, OK, and I noticed it on the, um, Facebook post Saying if you're wanting to work in Arkansas until 87. 6 days a week, but until 87. But what was the date that the affidavits were sent to those individuals. I don't see it on here where it says. When it was sent to him. I see when the notary signed it and sent it back. Um, well, I can, I think that, uh, give me a second because I may be able to pull it up on my iPad. Cause it's, it should be saved in my file and I have a unique file naming system that, um, uses the date. OK? Um, I don't have it readily available that with everybody looking at me, I can't find it, um, but I can, I can pull that up and, uh, get it to you in another way to, uh, I have, I have Mr. Little's email address. OK. A while ago I asked you if you knew how long they stayed when they checked out, and I think your answer was no. So my question is, you've prepared this affidavit. It was sent out to out of state, uh, canvassers at their location. Uh, I don't know. They were sent email or how it was that they were sent to him, but the notary signed on August 5th, that meant that either they were still in Arkansas because it asked them to stay until August 7th, but on some of these, they're notarized on August 5th and August 4th, which is two days before they were asked to stay and then if you didn't know when they checked out of the hotel. How did you know to send it to them, especially to an out of state where out of state notary would sign it. And send it back and for what purpose was the affidavit sent? Uh if I caught your question, it was, could you say the question part again? Just the question is, you testified a while ago, you didn't know when they were at the motel or when they left and I said, well, the motel manager ought to know that, and you said you didn't know, but yet you knew. That this affidavit. Was being sent because you prepared and sent it, and it's on August 5th and August 6th to an out of state notary who signed it on all of them and came back. How would you not know that they had left the motel and yet these affidavits were sent. On August 5th, all of them out of, out of, well some out, out of state. Uh, so, I don't know when they stayed there or when they left, and I never, I maybe this will be a little bit more clarifying. I have never spoken, texted, emailed a single one of these people. I, uh, was informed that there was a problem. Um, I looked at how to correct the problem. This affidavit should have done it, and I gave it to, uh, AVII and that was the last, I got him back, and this is what I got. Who did you give the affidavits to then? To who sent the affidavits to these people. I believe somebody on behalf of AEVII. I don't know for sure. I know that I gave it to my client. Which would mean That they went where? They were, they were out of state when these were signed. I, I, all I know is I emailed it to my client. OK. Do you know the date you emailed it to? Is that what you were looking for, was it? I, I can find it just probably not with everybody looking at me with red lights, OK. All right, um. I'm going to, we got, uh, Representative Ray, I may want to come back and ask one question, and Mayor, we're going to try to get this thing on the ground, but I think I may want to have Doug Kurs come back up. Is that? OK, all right, um. Tell you what, if you don't mind, step aside. I may have one or more too for you. Sure, let's, let's call Leslie and Doug back up to the table. Uh, we do have one member of the public who likes to speak. I'm gonna award 5 minutes, uh, up to 5 minutes for that and, um, so Doug, if you would come and Leslie, would you please come? Thank you, Clare. Representative very you recognize y'all still under oath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so my question for, um, the clerk would be. Mr. Clark or there When the when these petitions were submitted where they submitted under the name of Any sort of organization or ballot committee. Or was it just a group of individuals turning in petitions with no organizational name 3 individuals that come to the office turn into petitions. And as far as that, I do not think they said who they were coming in for. They're just coming in too. Here's a petitions. I might need to defer that to uh Miss Kane. She was the one that was standing there when they came in, so she might. If she knew anything about it, uh. I don't know it. OK, thank you. And my question for Ms. Bellamy. When I, I believe when a statewide canvassing effort is underway and a group that registers with you is paying signature gatherers. They have to turn in. Uh, the names and, and information about those paid petition gatherers when, when this happens on a local level and there are paid signature gatherers involved. Do they also report those to you or who did they report them to the county clerk or do they report them to anybody? that there is no law to make them report that now, which would be something that, uh, in conversations we've looked at that I would suggest that we work together to fix so that they have. To follow the same $500 threshold is a statewide initiative. OK. So there's currently, there is no list of people who were paid signature gatherers for this effort. Not to my knowledge they would not turn that into me. It would, I guess it would go to ethics for the county clerk is the repository in that instance, but I can find no requirement that they have to do that on a local level. All right, I appreciate you, the two of you answering my question. Thank you. All right. Uh, is Senator Brian, is this for them? All right. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess for, for Mr. Curtis, As far as having a sponsor for Petitions of this nature. If you had a question for the sponsor, you would not have had any documentation of who physically is responsible for. The petition request? No, I would have not. I, I would have not known who to contact. In case there was a problem, uh. I've had petitions, people that's going to circulate petitions before I come to my office before they start this set down. Tell me what they were planning on doing, giving me a list, you know, of who their contacts, who my contacts would be. I did not have that happen in this situation. However, it is not a law that they come and do that. OK. All right, thank you. And then I guess for Miss Bellamy, the question I have is kind of goes back to the original. Discussion we had around notaries and, and dealing with, I, I assume this form for signatures to collect comes out of Secretary of State's office. Yes, we prescribed the form, uh, I want to read the notary public's sworn statements that they're stamping on this date before me that sign personally appeared, the subject known well to me or satisfactorily satisfactorily proven. By provided documentations to be the person described in the, in the foregoing canvas affidavit and acknowledge that he or she executed the same capacity of the canvasser for the purpose of fulfilling the legal requirements of the canvasser for the state of Arkansas that I personally witness. So it kind of goes beyond, I'm just validating a signature as a notary public to. I'm also validating that they have the capacity of the canvasser for purposes of fulfilling the legal requirements of that canvasser. And so I guess my question would be if I, if I, as a notary public in signing this because I see that there's a signature and there is a current residence, regardless of what I know it is to be, not, not the domicile residents. Uh, you know, debate, but then somebody changes that. Is there, is there a potential of liability for, for fraud? I think as I testified before that I, I do believe that would be an instance of fraud, uh, now who committed the fraud, we have no way to know, and that's why I would have kicked them out on a state level. There's no initial, there's no, you know, explanation as to why that was redacted. So as, as we're looking at, at just some of the loopholes within, within. Title VII. Is there a point where we need to know who has the final. And the final liability as a sponsor for turning in these documents because somebody is obviously guilty of doing this, whether or not they broke the law, I guess that would obviously be up there are courts to define, but is, is part of our discussion here. Should we have a sponsor for even local ordinance petitions that we have somebody to pin responsibility on whenever. Potential fraud is concerned. I really do believe that we should and, and one reason is, you know, an instance like this, this requires a county to Um, change something that their quorum Court has the statutory authority to do so if they're gonna have that kind of power and just a petition, uh, it should be something that could be tracked and I'm sure it'll be sued on just like our statewide initiatives are, but yes, it should be able to be tracked. Who's responsible, who hired them, how much they paid each individual, that should mirror state law. And just, just the final to close my, my questioning here. Statement that we're having a notary public sign. That says foregoing canvass affidavit and acknowledge that he or she executed and as a capacity as a fulfilling the legal requirements. Is that too Is that too much on the notary? I think it is because I don't think it mirrors, um, now that we're talking about in that capacity, I don't think that that correctly mirrors the notary law or trainings. So I think that would need to be something that we look at and change. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, members, um, you got one more Representative Wootton, and then I'm gonna take your motion and then we're going to, uh, uh, give a chance for, uh, public testimony for up to 5 minutes. Representative Wooton, you're up. Mr. Chairman. I, I also have a question for Mr. Curtis, but I'd like for Miss Kane to come back for just a short question. Mr. Curtis. Do you have, is there a set amount of signatures you have to have in a county before a petition is granted or presented to the justice of the peace. Yes, sir, there is. But Is, is it a given number based on it is uh The petitions is a strange. Number whenever you look throughout the law because some of it might be 10% of it all the way up to 38% of the registered voters there is a requirement. Yes, there is a requirement. Ms. Kane, if I may, Mr. Chairman, this came the question I have, are you there when all petitions are turned in. For the most part, yes, sir. I mean that's a normal routine practice. It wasn't the fact that maybe there would be some type of problem with these. OK, you, you're normally there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kaine. Thank you. All right, um, to double check my notes here real quick. Members, just so you know, invitation sent, um. At least for Laurie Justice was sent on September 17th. I think that aligns with everybody else. So they've, they've had, um, I guess it'd be nearly 2 weeks' notice just for the record. Um, Hear your motion. Mr. Chair, I move that authority be granted to the chairs of the joint Performance Review Committee to exercise the subpoena power of the committee to issue subpoenas for persons, documents and records related to the collection of signatures to include paper ballots in Arkansas elections at the county level. Proper motion. There's our second got multiple seconds saying discussion to the motion. Hear no discussion, all in favor of the motion. Say aye. Any opposed? OK, so be it. All right, members, um, we're going to recognize a member of the committee. Johnny, come on up. Johnny, I'm not gonna swear you in because you're giving public testimony on, uh, Some thoughts you shared with me, so I'm not gonna put you under oath and, uh, You know what, Johnt second thought I am because I want to ask you a question. Go ahead and push a button and identify yourself for the record. OK, I'm sorry, I don't hear I didn't wear my hearing aids, talk slow, sure. I need to put you under oath because I may want to ask you a question. So what your name and who you're representing here are you representing yourself today? Yes, I'm representing myself. My name's Johnny McMahan. I was mayor of Bauxite 211 to 214, Johnny, would you please stand and I'm gonna put you under oath, OK? All right. Do you saw swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. All right, thank you. I'm gonna recognize you for up to 5 minutes of personal comments, and then I wanna ask you a question, OK? uh, first of all, I was mayor of Bauxite. Kim Hammer was the state representative and then he helped me. And I appreciate it. Lady fight is county judge and he helped me too as as mayor of a small town, you need help every day. I ran for 11 term and I didn't run again because I felt I was helping people that didn't want my help, but I'm retired. I've, I've, I have experienced the canvassing. I've canvassed with different, uh, issues, and I'm familiar with the petition of the paper ballots petition and I've got and I'm, I'm not an attorney, so I don't have an attorney client privilege and I won't use that. So, and I know some of the answers that y'all question that I've gathered. I go to things like this. I went to the trial with the paper ballots with Allison and Doug, uh, I was there and it was ob Uh, what, what was the outcome. OK, first of all, and I'm gonna give my opinion and some of you and and if you want me to tell you what is hearsay or what my opinion is, it doesn't matter to me. I'll tell you the truth. First of all, everything is secret and all of these, all of these petition deals, it's all secret. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand does a lot of times. That's my experience. Everything is secret when things are secret, it leads to corruption. And I think that's why if y'all can figure it out, that's where we are today. domicile is confusing. I worked with canvassing when you get to the domicile, people don't know what domicile means. Half the time I didn't know, but the domicile needs to be cleared up. I'm telling you that needs to be cleared up whether their vote, that's, that's, I don't know what the answer is, but the domicile is confusing to 98% of the people they don't know. OK, I would get the Attorney General to review all local ordinances like they do the state. I would get the Attorney General. I know Tim Griffin, he helped me when I was mayor of Bauxite. I have faith in him to do the right thing. I think Tim will do. OK, I would suggest the Attorney General hold classes and go over the paperwork needed to be filled out and rules for collecting signatures. I've been in, I've been, I've collected signatures and basically it's not taken serious by the canvassers, by the people running the camp, that's my opinion. They, they, they go through it quick. They don't, they don't stop and explain anything they read through it, they give you a sheet out and then they turn them loose. And there's nobody checking up all they want is signatures. These canvassers are paid for. out of state, they there's a lot, a lot of money, a lot of money involved. And I'm telling you, all they want is signatures, so the signatures, the canvassing, they, they tell them. But they don't emphasize. OK. Most committees think voluntarily volunteers will do the job, but they don't. It's paid canvassers, the volunteers will get 10 or 20 signatures on their, on their, uh, block, and then they quit. I know Lordie Justice. I know Stephanie Johnson. I talked to him when they were doing the petitions and they told me very clearly, it was difficult, it's hard to get signatures and they couldn't depend on volunteers, they can, they all, I'd, I'd subpoena another name that y'all tried to find out who pays who paid the paper ballots. I think you need to subpoena Will Hurd. He is, he is the right-hand man for Conrad Reynolds from what I understand, and it's hearsay. He was the one that was doing the hiring and the paying, but his name is not mentioned here today. Will Hurd, you ask him, I'm a friend of his on Facebook. I know him occasionally a little bit. I've run into him, but Will Hurd as soon as you need to ring up here and ask him and hopefully he'll tell the truth. OK, Pavisers are more reliable, and I said that. Nobody Nobody asked the notaries how much they were getting paid. They were in a conflict. The notaries, when I've dealt with them, they did their job, but they were paid either by the, by the notary signature or by the hour and they were making 20 to 2025 or $30 or $50 an hour to notarize. That was in a y'all didn't ask that. I don't know why you followed the money. But some of y'all ask questions that I knew the answers and I can't remember. I didn't write them all down, but that's, that's where if you want any question, uh, I'll, I'll answer any questions. I don't know how much time I got, but I'm, I believe in the petition. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution, I believe in petitioning government, y'all are legislatures. If y'all are trying to make it harder for people to collect signatures, it's working, but it's gonna boomerang on you at some point at some point in my, in my opinion, but I'm full of opinions, but if you don't make it semi easier on some of these things, it's gonna boomerang on you and the people are gonna be setting the laws and not y'all. OK. Any questions? I think General Barry has. Question first. OK. I'm supposed to wear hearing aids and I, I forget them half the time and I, I, I'm sorry, but speak slow and clear, and I'll try to Senator Kim, I, I know him as Kim, but I had a son that died in '98. His wife was, you can tell her, Karen. She was one of the nice people, nice people to me at Minton school system. OK. Yes. Hey, uh, Johnny, yeah. So can you hear me now? Yes, OK, so my question is, would you know, uh, who redacted the information on the documents that we've been discussing today, I didn't know. I was, I don't know. I did not collect any signatures for the favor ballot. I've just noticed when they were around and I asked them questions and when you ask questions one on one, they'll tell you the truth. And they told me the truth and I, I stopped at one of the One of the bands and a guy and I noticed, I think it was his name and his daughter. She is from Texas. He said he was making $1000 a week. I don't know. I don't know, but that's what he said he was from Texas asking where he was living, and he said in Conway at a hotel and I said, is that legal? He said, they said it was. So Yes, so when he said, do you know who the day was when he said they said it was legal, do you know who that, that is, they didn't. And if I was guessing, they, they don't know. Everything, and I'm going back, everything is secret on all of these committees, they're secret. They don't tell the left hand doesn't know where the right hand is. It's crazy. I'm telling you this, I've done this. I went to Florida, I went to Iowa, and I worked in Arkansas. And it's every this out of state counselors in my opinion are gypsies. They're gypsies. That may not be a correct word, but it doesn't matter to me. No, I do not know who we rejected. I would presume that was well hurt. That's right I'd presume, but I may be wrong. Who, who else do you think? 11 last question and then we're gonna, we're gonna bring it to a close. You mentioned somebody else that, you know, we ought to have come in. Is there somebody, anybody else that you think that we ought to have come in that could shed light on this because what we're trying to find out is the affidavit, Con. That's for sure. Uh, Conrad Reynolds, um, I met with him back in the spring, him and Will. And I offered to help to give them and try to and I wanted money and I'll admit that. I've, I'm done volunteering, um, my time, I'm, I'm at the end of this stuff. There's a lot of money in it. OK. OK. Reynolds and Will. That's Uh, Lord Justice. Um, Stephanie Johnson, uh, they need to come. And ask him hard questions ask them hard questions, and they'll tell you the truth, I think. All right, Johnny, thank you for being here today. We appreciate your testimony. All right, members, nobody else signed up, nothing else for the committee, anything missing. All right. Members, thanks for being here today. Uh, we will be following up and thank you for being here today. We're adjourned.