State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (2)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…r Sen. Bob Ballinger REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HJR1008 Vaught AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND T…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND THE PROCESS FOR THE SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL … | Vaught | Reviewed by the Governor |
|
HB1893
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1893 J Della Rosa”
|
TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE … | Della Rosa | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Mr. Chairman, Senator Matt Pitt, here with H.J.R. on 2008 as the third presidential constitutional amendment. You're recognized. Thank you. Committee members, what we have in front of us today, you've heard the presentations before. And basically the Arkansas Constitution is a sacred document, I guess, for lack of a better word. It's not meant to be easy to change or to amend.
Our founders did not anticipate the last level of special interest group money and outside influences used to take advantage of the citizens' right to amend their constitution via the petition process. HJRA was designed by many people involved, but we'll get into that in a minute, to protect the people of Arkansas' rights and to ensure citizen initiatives are genuinely citizens' initiatives. and not special interest purchases. The Constitutional Amendment, H.J.R.A. 1008, does four things.
It requires, first of all, three-fifths of the House and the Senate will have to vote for the Constitutional Amendment and the legislature who bought two votes instead of the current half and 50% plus one threshold. The second thing is, three-fifths of the Arkansas counties must have enough petition signatures collected, And that's 45 counties instead of 15. We believe that we developed this with all the parties, that mass-broad appeal for a constitutional provision drive was necessary.
We didn't feel like we were getting the mass-broad appeal by only getting 15 counties. The number of signatures required, however, per county is still based on the previous voter turnout ratio. We did not change that, mostly because of the clause in the Constitution that our legal minds found, and they're here to talk to, was that if you change the Constitution, change the process, you can't make it tougher on the vote as a self-protecting device in the Constitution.
That's come up several different times in people debating what we ended up with. And it kind of exposed one of the discussions we kept going. We wanted to do this, but couldn't do that. The commerce cost came out. The ability to not be able to suffer or change the cost came into play. The third thing we did is ... Turn it on. Turn on the side.
Speaker 13
2:34
Yeah, there you go. There we go. I thought I turned it on.
Speaker 18
2:51
Sorry. That's all right. I should have caught that. I wasn't reverberating. We're recording. Okay,
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
2:57
then you go forward. The third item on our constitutional amendment is we chose to remove the cure
period. What we currently have available to our citizens is here's the deadline. Oh, but that's not really the deadline. The deadline is now 30 days more. We chose to say today is the deadline. And one of the reasons for doing that, and you'll hear I'm sure from people in the opposition, that there is
fraud in that area, but fraud can happen anywhere. Well, that's true, but if we have a deadline and we're watching what's turned in on the deadline, that forces people to do their work before that deadline. And that deadline is the fourth major item. We, in visiting with folks with our current process, realized that with summer vacations, other things, we needed to move up the date for submittal and we had to put an appropriate challenge date that allowed voters to know what the petition they were voting on in November was. So we
We went to January 15th for the submittal, and instead of just going two months, we went to April 15th for the challenges, but that gave us enough time before the summer break. The Supreme Court could rule on those, and by the summer, we hope to have all those challenges resolved so that as you come out of the summer, you still have four to five months to know what's going to be on that ballot come November. That's the fourth thing that we did, and with that, Mr. Chairman, you're going to hear from
folks, I assume they're going to speak today, they spoke every time we presented, that this doesn't go far enough. The people that developed what HJRA 1008 started with the premise of we want this to get through, we need it legally to sustain all challenges, and we wanted to go far. We wanted to deal with paid canvassers, but the Commerce Clause came into effect. We wanted to deal with going further on, let's go three-fifths of the counties and then raise
the vote threshold. Well, you can't do that because voters have put in our constitutional protection. We can't make that part of it tougher. While I may not be a legal, in fact I'm not, a legal constitutional scholar, we had attorneys from the attorney general, from the governor's office, from the election commission, from the secretary of state, state chamber had their private attorney in the room as we developed what HJR 81008 is. And so, with that, I think it's time probably
to do some question and answers, if that would be available. Question from the committee? I think I know
Speaker 25
5:38
the answer to it, but the drop dead date for hearing challenges gives us an opportunity to come, or the, yeah, so the date, the
Speaker 28
5:45
deadline, gives us an opportunity to come before the, and I don't remember what the date's called, but the date's certain when we have to actually send the forms out to get them printed. Is that the idea, is that hopefully we'll end up with forms that don't have on them the challenges,
Speaker 29
6:01
or the provisions that got challenged and booted off, right? Fill
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
6:05
the blank. Yep. There's multiple reasons for the date, but that's one of them. I think the biggest one is that when you have a challenge, if that challenge can come, well, anytime, by having that challenge as a date, April 15th, the Supreme Court will hear it. We won't get into the summer break. We were seeing Supreme Court challenge reviews required and they weren't there. They were not enough or whatever
and having to pull in others. This met with something they wanted to do was move it up and have the deadline there. And quite frankly, I think what we all want is on November, a petition drive ballot initiative that everybody knows fully what's in it and what goes and what doesn't go, and that's what these dates were there for, so. Anyone else?
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
6:57
Senator Byer. I know that we've discussed this before, but the January 15th date has been discussed a bunch.
Speaker 38
7:03
Why the arrival at that date? I mean, it's dead
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
7:10
of winter. Well, it's the dead of winter, no doubt, but you're gonna have to
collect signatures, especially now that you have to have broad mass appeal, And January 15th, those of us who've been in March primaries, we're going to have to be out there. We're going to have to work. And to get those signatures, that was the date. Many of them are already collecting signatures through the winter.
We've got one petition drive's already submitted their signatures for our next November election to the Secretary of State. So I don't think we're in a process where, oh, it's cold, I can't get signatures. I think they're doing it year-round the way it is right now. But we're shaving off, what was
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
7:50
it, July? I can't even remember. So you're shaving off about six months? I'm going to lie to you if I
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
7:57
tell you the exact time frame of what we had before. I'm sure somebody will get to it. Yeah, somebody can answer that.
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
8:05
And I think it's been discussed. We beat different bills on paid canvassers and this type of stuff around that the legislature is the number one culprit in amending the Constitution, not the people, correct? If my analogy
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
8:17
where I say we've had 20 in the last seven, yes. If you look at what's happened in
the last two, those have been predominantly petition drives as well. They've equaled
Speaker 35
8:26
us, no doubt. And that is what's driving
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
8:29
it a little, isn't it, the last couple of years of amendments that people have kind of figured it out?
Can't really figure, yeah. That's all. The question's at right now.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
8:43
Thank you. For the questions, We have two people signed up to speak, one for and one against. Jerry Cox.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
9:06
Mr. Chairman, I do have one sheet of paper, if it's okay. Good, good
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
9:21
staff. If you would introduce yourself as director, you're recognized. Thank
Jerry Cox
Unverified
9:26
you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jerry Cox. I'm executive director of family council. And I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you
this morning and discuss this important issue. The, I think all of us realize that the initiative process needs to be fixed. I think we all realize that in some ways it's a little bit like a car with three or four flat tires and we're all trying to figure out what do you do to fix it. And so I appreciate everybody's effort.
I really do, because I think it does need to be fixed. Here's the problem. HJR 1008 helps a couple of things. So if I may use my analogy, I'd say it's almost like it fixed one of the flat tires, but leaves the others undone and unfixed. In fact, it leaves unfixed the things that most of us have complained about the most.
people buying their way to the ballot, people writing themselves into the state constitution, fraud, really doesn't address those. And so that's what I want to point out to you today is that it doesn't fix the problems that you all and we have complained about and talked about. I want to address a couple of things.
people have, there's a lot of confusion about the 45 validating counties, and that's a term of art in the petition industry, and I know that because I've done five statewide ballot measures over the last several years, and so I know how this process works. Those 45 counties, the way it works is you have to get 10 percent of the legal voters statewide. So if there were 800,000 people who
voted in the previous election, you got to get 80,000 valid signatures. You got to get 10 percent. But to ensure another safeguard in there, it does require you to get at least five percent from 15 counties and the purpose of that is so you don't get all your signatures in one spot and so what many people don't realize is the way the law is written you have to hit five percent or better in each of those 15 counties those so there's a gotcha
provision in the law already. So if you fail in one of those counties, if you only validate 15 counties and you fail in one, it's ball game over for you no matter how many signatures you gathered elsewhere. What this measure does, it increases that gotcha threshold because it ups that number to 45. So if you trip and fall in any one of those 45 counties, then everything
you've done is out. You have, you've been disqualified. And that's written that way on purpose because I know who was involved and I know what the intent of that is on the part of not the sponsors, hear me on this, but people who were in the room who understood the fine details of the process to a point that they could manipulate it to their advantage. And that's
what we have before us here. They've manipulated it to their advantage because they specialize in disqualifying measures and they get paid very well for it. And so what happens is you work real hard and you get your let's say under this measure your 45 counties that you got at least five percent and those attorneys that work in big tall building downtown that get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars look at that and they say you know what they only they only got over the
threshold down in Dallas County by about 50 signatures I bet you we could go down there and I bet we could by some way or another find a way to disqualify enough of those signatures that we could whittle them down and cause their whole petition drive to fail. And let me tell you how they're going to do that. In the previous measure that is already passed, already signed into law, there's a little hidden line in there that says an entire page can be disqualified if the notary seal is illegible.
So they're going to look at that and they're going to say, ah, they didn't ink that thing properly. I can't read that. The whole page goes out the window. and they whittle you down that way and so there are these gotcha things hidden in these measures that I'm not sure people are seeing and I'm not again I'm not faulting the sponsors on this as much as I am the other people who I believe knew exactly what they were doing when they said oh you can't do this because you'll run afoul of this thing well I happen to know for example
when they say, oh, you can't require 60% of the vote for a constitutional measure. Well, the state of Florida does it. They've been doing it for years. And they say, oh, you can't regulate paid canvassers. Well, there are about nine other states that regulate paid canvassers. Why couldn't we? And so there is a lot that people don't know about this process. And what we're about to do here is we are about to send an amendment out to the people, if we pass this, that is not going to address these problems.
And I'm going to start with the top. Number one, people are using the initiative process to write themselves into the Constitution. Everybody knows that. If you read HDR 1008, there is not a single word in that measure that will prevent that. None, whatsoever. There are other measures out here that this committee has looked at that do that, that address that, and you can do so.
The other thing is there's fraud and deception by the backers of initiatives. In order to deal with fraud and deception, you have to regulate paid canvassers. You can do that if you simply put a line in the Constitution that the General Assembly may regulate paid canvassers. You can license them, you can require them to register, you can require them to do all kinds of things, just like we require other people that are licensed to do things.
But you also have to regulate the people that employ the paid canvasser. There are companies out here that come in from out of state and they bring a load of migrant worker type people And they're as underhanded and crooked as the people that may be out there gathering the signatures because they're the ones employing them. Again, there is nothing in this measure that gives you as the legislative body any more ability to regulate those folks.
And then we've already talked about too many amendments. If you want to restrict the number of amendments that go into the Constitution, you have to raise the vote threshold because this body is going to refer out two or three amendments every time it meets. And this has already been pointed out over the last 22 years there have been only five citizen initiatives that have that have actually been signed into or become law. The rest of them came from here. And so the only way you're going to deal with
that, I believe, has raised the vote threshold, as other places have done. One of the reasons we have so many amendments is because for initiated act and a constitutional amendment, the effort it takes, the signatures you have together, is almost identical. It's 10% versus 8%. So every time I went out there and did a constitutional amendment, I said, why would I do an initiated act? It's about the same effort, I'll do an amendment. And other people do the same thing. Thus, you have marijuana
and all these other things written into the Constitution because the thresholds are virtually identical. The other thing is that I have resisted up until recently. Senator Sample has pointed that out. I wish we didn't need to do this kind of legislation because I think in its pure sense, The people need that right to get out there and get the signatures, but it has been perverted, and the original intent of this effort, this part of the Constitution, I think has been perverted, and it does need to be fixed.
It's just that this does not fix it. Because I think certain individual interest groups, again, not this body and not the sponsors, want to keep certain lanes open. I believe certain people would like the ability to write themselves into the Constitution. I believe they would like the ability to spend $5 million, $10 million, and put their measure on the ballot. So thus, as this is put together, they kept those lanes open.
And I think that does a disservice to everybody. If we're going to make the process harder, we need to make it more difficult for everybody. And there's a way to do that. And there are already measures out here in play that would do that. But this one is not it. Now, in closing, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say I do not fault the sponsors of this measure, but this is an extremely complicated issue that most people, unless you've done
a petition drive, do not understand, and it's very difficult to write legislation that will fix this, even with the best efforts. again I would urge you not to approve this measure. Take some of what's in here because I'll close by saying Senator Pitch and Representative Vaught have done some good things with this. Moving those dates, that's a good thing because Secretary of State needs more time. I think making it so lawsuits don't get
filed at the last minute and knock people off about, that's a good thing. So that's one of the four flat tires that they have fixed, but the rest of the problems are still there and you will see people still by their way to the ballot, you will still see people write their themselves into the Constitution because this has not prevented that. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Cox. Thank you for
listening to me as long as y'all did. I appreciate
it. Would you take questions? Yes sir, I'll be glad to.
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
21:18
But Mr. Cox and I agree on this issue, so I want to take some time just to
point out. Okay, this is historic. Yeah, maybe I think I'm the only one on the committee that's rated
F by the Family Council. Like I said before,
Jerry Cox
Unverified
21:34
there's hope. There's always hope. Maybe we can do most improved this time or something.
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
21:46
and I think, I'll say this, I think the cake's probably already baked,
but as far as the votes go, but this 45 counties deal is a big deal, meaning, and you and I, I think, understand that what lawyers do is they get in, when they want to knock something off, they get in and litigate every county. And so you can, if you knock off one of the 45, the whole thing goes away so they look at every petition that's every page in the counties where it's closest and they try and knock them off and it's just a it is a litigation machine essentially that's been used by different interests
over the years to knock things off the ballot that's something that we agreed with some that we disagreed with correctly that is correct and so what this does is increases that by three times it goes from 15 to 45 that is correct. So you have 45 opportunities to litigate something off the ballot, signature
Jerry Cox
Unverified
22:43
by signature by signature. And canvasser by canvasser also, it might add, if I may respond, because they'll challenge the canvasser and say, you know, did you stand there and watch every person sign their name? Well, no, I looked
away, a dog walked by and I didn't see that one, or whatever,
you know, and it's all this kind of gotcha stuff that they try to
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
23:02
use. So two more questions, I'll I'll say two more. One, what this HJR8 essentially does is makes it to where big money, people with unlimited funds, can still get on the ballot. I think those
Jerry Cox
Unverified
23:13
lanes are wide open. I believe they are, Senator. And then everybody else, it's
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
23:17
a huge mountain to climb. It just got a lot taller. And we talked earlier, what we thought, or at least what I thought, is if we're going to reform this process, we need to make it a fair fight for everybody.
Citizens, your everyday guys, gals, and corporate interests. Do you believe HJR 8 makes it a fair fight? As I've said before, it does
Jerry Cox
Unverified
23:43
not make it a fair fight because, again, if you have enough money, I believe you can, by hook or crook, use the different provisions that are in this and the previous measure that was passed. And I think you render it almost impossible. it would be almost as if everything that you do comes under the microscope could somebody find
that you broke a law yeah they could probably any of us any day we probably break some kind of law if you put it under enough of a microscope and that's what this gives the detractors the ability to do so I don't think it's a fair fight because if you're a little guy out here running on volunteers and all that, it does make it harder on you. It really does. And I know because I've done it. Thank
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
24:33
you. Thank you. Thank you. The last statement you just said just flabbergasted me.
You said that people were just breaking the law blatantly and your concern is that we might turn an eye on that and actually catch them breaking the law. That's essentially what you just said. You said people were breaking the law all the time doing this and your worry is that once we turn the requirements up to where that's exposed, where you have transparency, where we actually put a microscope on this process, they'll be found out. Isn't that essentially what you said? No, sir. Let me tell you what I
Speaker 81
25:03
said. Hold on, sir. I believe you just said something very similar like that.
People break the law, we all break the law every single day is what you said. Mr. Chairman, may
Jerry Cox
Unverified
25:14
I respond by saying what I believe? That, with all due respect, that is not what was
said. let's take the notary seal example. Let's say that I go out and I gather 10 pages of petitions and I go get them notarized.
The way one of the measures is written, it says unless the notary seal is legible on every one, so you turn through there and let's say that Senator Hickey is the notary. It says, Jimmy Hickey, Jimmy Hickey, Jimmy Hickey. It has his name on there, has everything proper. It's just that on that page number five, he just hit it wrong, and the notary seal is illegible. That violates the spirit of the law, because there is the letter of the law, and there's the spirit of the law.
The way this is, even though the spirit of the law is being followed, and you can tell that that's Jimmy Hickey's name on there because he wrote it on there. Just because you didn't ink it properly, they can, by the letter of the law, take that page and just throw it
Speaker 81
26:28
out. And you lose every signature on that page. Let me interrupt you
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
26:32
there. So what you're saying is if they follow the actual law, there could be an issue. I mean, if they break the actual law is what you just
Jerry Cox
Unverified
26:40
said. I think I've responded sufficiently to that, Senator.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
26:43
Okay, sir. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Davis. I heard you mention that this would make it difficult for the little guy, the regular citizen, to get something on the ballot. But I'm just curious when the regular citizen has ever gotten anything on the ballot. I mean, as I understand
Jerry Cox
Unverified
27:04
it now, it's only special interest groups that are getting stuff on the ballot to change their constitution. Well, if you look back over the last 20 years, you find that, and even more, you find that the Unborn Child Amendment, Amendment 68, was passed by a citizen initiative with all volunteers.
And you know how I know that
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
27:26
is because I did it. Yes, so it was facilitated through
Jerry Cox
Unverified
27:29
the Family Council. It was facilitated through a committee that formed temporarily to do that, because you have to have some kind of structure. You can't just have nobody in charge to be able to do a petition drive. And so there was a group of people that formed a committee, and that committee ran for the duration of the time, which I was involved with, and then when it was over with, it disbanded.
So you have to have structure. You have to have a sponsoring organization. So it did. The Arkansas Marriage Amendment did, because I ran that one. We had
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
28:04
5,000 volunteers. But can you give me an example of a time that
only citizens banded together to get something on the ballot? It was not helped or facilitated in any way by a special
Jerry Cox
Unverified
28:17
interest group. The Family Council is also a special interest group. I would respond by
asking a question of there were 5,000 volunteers that circulated petitions for the marriage amendment.
All of those people were citizens of Arkansas. They were pastors. They were people that were in Sunday school class. They were just regular people. That's the only people that could do that. And so they cared enough about it that they stood in the hot sun with a clipboard and they gathered the signatures as a volunteer and they sent them in and we processed the signatures and brought
them over here. Somebody had to do that. So that's been done numerous times.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
29:00
So all times it's been facilitated by a special interest group, including the family council. But even if you say, well, volunteers were involved with the marriage amendment and the abortion amendment that you're talking about, so then you can maybe list two times that it wasn't fully run by a special interest group but still facilitated in some way. Senator Davis? So all the other times. Senator Davis? Yes, sir. Could we stay on
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
29:24
this bill and ask questions and keep the decorum on the bill? I'm just
trying to get a direct answer on that.
I understand we've gotten away from the bill. and debating other issues and so. And Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to take questions as long as you want to
Jerry Cox
Unverified
29:39
ask, but you know, I think I've pretty much said everything I need to say. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to be clear that if we
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
29:47
were, you know, if we're being accused of trying to make it harder for citizens to get things on the
ballot, I want to help understand that that's not the case at all. Thank you. Go ahead. Anyone else? Okay,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
29:56
Mr. Cox, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 98
30:01
Thank you, members of the committee. Randy Zook. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Randy Zook, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, my remarks will be very brief, I just want to express the support of our organization and others within
our membership directly involved in recognizing the need and encouraging some approach to this. We appreciate very much what Senator Pitch and Representative Vaught have done in formulating this approach to this problem, this challenge. The most significant and important thing I think in the proposal is the change in the dates so that we avoid the train wrecks that we had in the last,
before the last election where we were three weeks before the election date learning that a significant issue was not going to be allowed to be counted in the election process due to a Supreme Court decision. There had been, I don't even want to get close to telling you how much money on both sides of that issue had been spent to no avail and to no purpose for either side
in trying to address, that was the tort reform issue. The other one was the term limits issue,
Speaker 99
31:45
which we challenged two of the proposals on the ballot last time. One was the term limits and one was the minimum wage issue. We batted 500 on the deal, on the approach, on the struggle. We kept one off the ballot, and we failed to keep
Speaker 98
32:04
another one off that we still think should have been kept off because of the flaws within the process.
There have been some comments about the difficulty of gathering signatures. It should be difficult. There are really specific laws. And it's incredible to me that people can take sort of a cavalier attitude toward what should be enforced and what shouldn't be enforced. So I just want to be very brief and say we support this resolution. We'll be active in supporting the efforts to pass it and we hope you'll vote for it.
Speaker 99
32:41
Thank you very much. Thank you. Happy to take any questions if there happen
Speaker 101
32:45
to be any. Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
32:57
you. Senator Pitcher, you want to close? Turn to Mr. Zooks-Michael. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you committee. Thank you to the speakers who spoke for and against. It is an issue that we do need to debate. I
came at this bill from the premise that we have done things in the constitutional amendment arena
that aren't good. We kind of, as I said yesterday, step back and go, really? We just approved a company's name in our constitution. When that happened, that was the threshold for me to we need to see what's out there and what do we need to do? Great legal minds all put together, made sure we did not have log rolling, et cetera, got involved, tried to develop this initiative. I was able to be a part of that. I was the member with Representative Vaught
to bring this bill, but I want you to understand how many legal decisions were made with BLR and others to get to this point. And with that,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
33:58
Mr. Chairman, I'm closed. You've heard the arguments for against the bill. What's the pleasure
of the committee? Motion do pass. Second. Discussion Senator Sam.
Speaker 108
34:18
Well, I'm going to bring up the chicken and egg
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
34:24
process. Turn your mic on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to bring up the chicken and, which comes first, chicken
or the egg, because if it says that we can't regulate the initiative process, how are we ever going to get this fixed? Can I speak?
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
34:44
Can I have a discussion? Well, I think that's an interesting point, Senator. I mean, but you gotta ultimately think about it.
We're amending our constitution. That's our foundational document. That's the part that basically makes our
laws. So as long as we're not violating, say, federal constitutional law or something like that by doing it, I think we have pretty broad discretion to actually put the initiative process on. And the people of Arkansas ultimately have that choice to make
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
35:08
a decision. But, Mr. Chair, but if the constitution does not allow for us to regulate the initiative process, how are you gonna make the change? That's my question. I mean, I feel like that we need to do something,
but I feel like that we need an answer on how it would be fair and constitutional for us to take and make that change. Let
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
35:32
me try there. We have attorneys in the room,
but Senator Sample, that question came to me as well as we were doing the development of this bill. And what was explained to me, the layperson, was that the thresholds that we put on the people to vote,
let's have three-fifths vote to pass instead of the 50% plus one, but that's what that mentioned there about the difficulty, the threshold, the bar to get over applied to in court cases in the past. Now, I would defer to other people, legal minds on the committee, but that's what they answered my
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
36:13
question with. I understand that, but I mean, I can look over at Senator Bond and say, he can argue this forever.
And so that's where I'm trying to get a grasp on this, is how can it be possible that we can change this initiative process? Can I say I was a little offended that I wasn't included in the great
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
36:41
legal minds? But I understand. I understand. I'm sorry, Senator.
Speaker 123
36:47
When they say great legal minds, I just exclude myself automatically. So this is the
Speaker 28
36:53
thing, and I've kind of been wrestling with this a little bit with the rules in the Senate.
Any body, and whether that's a citizen or whether that's a legislative body or a body of the Senate, essentially can't bind previous bodies. And so the reason why, it's not because within our Constitution we have limits on our ability to regulate. The issue of the 60% threshold comes up because the citizens at any point should have a right to amend their Constitution. In the same way we can change any rule with the vote of 18, because one body can't amend the next body.
And so that's the reason. I think you could change the guidance for regulating the people. I think you can do all that. I think increasing the 60% threshold, you probably can't because you can't bind these citizens to future citizens by amendment of
Speaker 124
37:50
the Constitution. If that makes sense. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I don't
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
37:55
disagree with the people, but it's said that the General Assembly, And so if the people don't want to take and regulate there, don't want to have that constitutional change, it's going to be up to the people to make that change.
I mean, that's my whole argument. If the Constitution prevents the General Assembly from making a change to it, to regulate how the initiated act can be done, then it's gotta be done by the citizens, not the assembly. That's the only point that I was wanting clarification of. Yes, sir, if you continue to read
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
38:39
that, Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution restricts the ability of General Assembly to regulate the initiative.
Regulate it through law, through actual law. Next sentence. A constitutional amendment is necessary to fix certain problems with initiated problems and to empower General Assembly. When they're talking about regulating General Assembly, they're talking about us passing a law. So if I pass a law tomorrow that said, you can't use paid canvassers, you can make a constitutional argument based on that section that that's unconstitutional. If we amend the Constitution by the people, i.e., they get to vote on it, that changed the foundational principle and is the new most current form of that if that does it.
So if we empower ourselves to change it through regulation we're allowed to. That's the distinction I think that you asked about. The difference between us being able to pass laws, say state agencies to regulate this versus us, sending to the people of Arkansas a constitutional amendment which changes how that process will work. I think that's the best
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
39:47
answer I can give. I'm sorry,
we did have a motion in a second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Ayes have it. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Business. Ms. Delarosa is here
from the House wanting to run a bill. It's not on the
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
40:22
suspend the rules to hear a bill that's not on the agenda.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:31
Let me ask this, though. Is this the bill that got referred back? it's my intention not to vote for any bills today, but I don't know if with this particular one, since it was already heard here, if we should make an exception because the only reason that it's not on our agenda is because of the action of the body yesterday. So I want to at least be fair to that part and I voted to refer it back.
So but by the same token, I'm not for sure that we don't have an obligation to hear that. So I just want to make that comment beforehand. And that doesn't mean on the somebody says, well, you've already heard one after this one. I'm not
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
41:19
going to play that game. So that's fine. I'm just I'm following the I
agree. And so it for our committee or any committee, it takes in the Senate, it takes six affirmative votes to hear a bill.
that's not on the agenda and and this bill is not on the agenda and it requires six affirmative votes to hear this bill so uh what's the pleasure of the
committee i would make a motion that we hear
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
41:45
the bill i think it i think it's just
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
41:47
yeah that's most motion and a second all in favor say I say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. You're welcome
to present your bill. Senator Ballinger. It's House Bill 1893.
Speaker 141
42:04
I don't really know what else. I've been in here twice about it now, so I don't really know what else to say about
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
42:16
it. That's fine. Get the pass down. Everyone have a
Speaker 28
42:19
copy of the bill? Senator Ballinger, do you have a question? Yeah, and it's really more of a statement, but I just want to say, you know, essentially I feel like to some extent, you know, from my standpoint, it is more restrictions on the private person. We kind of had that conversation.
You know, it does bring in them, and it doesn't do much more than what is our obligation as candidates. So, you know, I don't think that it's just terrible, but what it does is put more obligations on the private citizen. And I'm fundamentally opposed, and that's why I've not voted for it before, and I'm opposed to it now. But I feel like the fact that nobody else has approached you about that through this process, that essentially we're all getting texts about all these different people who don't like this,
but none of them had until maybe last night had said anything publicly about it. None of them has approached you about it. I mean, I feel bad, and the reason why we didn't roll call it before, the reason why I didn't roll call it before, is because essentially that no one has approached you about that. So my apologies that through this process nobody sat down and explained to you like when you put those restrictions on private organizations, you are further infringing on speech. I don't think that's a violation of Citizens United, but I do think it's a violation of the fundamental principles that has caused Citizens United.
It's, you know, when you use money for speech, a private organization, you know, it shouldn't be regulated. Now, if you wanted, and this may be something that you think about, and obviously we can't do it now. You hit on something when you presented it before where you have the individuals who are colluding with the campaign. You know, we as candidates, we have an obligation to disclose. We give up our rights as free individual citizens for privacy once we say we're going to take that public office.
So regulate us all day long to the point where Charlie Collins used to talk about the underwear bill, where we have to disclose everything and all we get to keep is our underwear, right? So, you know, if that's happened, I think there's not a violation of fundamental principles by that. Some things may be not a good idea, but that's what we do. You know, if you wanted to attack the collusion between these private organizations, these committees, and the candidates, that seems like that's fair game, is to find some way to address this. But if these private citizens are getting together however, and they're going out there and communicating their ideas, I really think, I think we already regulate them too much.
And so I'm not willing to take any step further than that. I know that's not necessarily a popular opinion, but that's basically where I'm at. And I hope that if you wanna address that, that'd be great.
Speaker 141
45:06
If you don't like the way that independent expenditure company or committees function, then you need to change current law because that law doesn't change any of that. That already exists. And there's a reason that it exists. And the reason, in terms of collusion, it's already prohibited. It's not in that bill because that wasn't affecting that piece of law,
but you can't collude for the reason. Because if you don't create independent expenditure committees, let's say they cease to exist today, what is to stop me from spending all I want to directly advocating for you, campaigning directly for you, and nobody has to report anything? The campaign finance laws would have absolutely no meaning anymore if we didn't have IECs because everybody could just skirt around it and say, oh, it's individual rights. So, you know, Chamber of Commerce can go out there
and put $20,000 into my campaign, but they just do it. And, you know, they can collude with me and everything, but it wasn't campaign money. Campaign finance limits would be meaningless if they didn't exist, which is why they exist. I am not creating IECs. I am not altering what they have to report in any way. The only thing that bill does, and I know it doesn't look that way, but I'm telling you, the only thing that bill does that is not in current law is it says the reporting they are required to do just needs to be done on the same schedule
and at the same trigger point as candidates because they advocate for and against candidates and it's unfair that they get to go all the way until the election before they have to disclose this information, which is already required. Again, I'm not asking for something they don't have to do and they get to do it in the dark for as long as they want to, but you have to start reporting on it as soon as you get $500. And what I did is I just married up that schedule with candidates. That's all this bill does. And if this committee decides not to
pass this bill out today, then it really just hurts you because what I'm trying to do is actually make it an even playing field for candidates versus these groups that advocate against or for candidates because it's not an even playing field right now. Political action committees have to report on a quarterly basis I'm not touching them even though they're not on the same schedule but at least they're reporting at some point once money starts flowing that's all I'm doing with IECs is saying once the money starts flowing you have to report not you know a year after you've
started spending it that's all this bill does and like I said I have no idea who's against this bill and I'm frankly I think you can tell very irritated that I have no idea who's against this bill because whoever it is isn't bothering to tell me and if they can tell all of you guys that they're against it they know where this table is and they can come and they can speak
Speaker 146
47:52
just the same as I can. This is an unfair situation. I would
Speaker 28
47:57
just follow up as I mean truly those people the fact that they're not here and they have an approach to you and they're expecting us to come kill your
bill that's offensive to me and and you're right. Thank you because it's offensive to me too and I
Speaker 147
48:10
wouldn't do this in the house I can guarantee you that would not happen. I would be irritated at whoever was
Speaker 148
48:16
doing it. Say, come get your rear end down here and talk in the front like everybody
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
48:26
else. Thank you. So you said the reporting requires are exactly the same. Is that correct as they are now?
What you have to report? So I'm looking at the prior code and you have it similar like when you start on page,
let me find the exact part, of what actual information you have to report. It looks like you're adding in a lot more than that. the 50, the name and address of each person who made contribution, or contributions that aggregated exceed $50. The contribution principal place of business, employer, concupation, amount of contribution. I mean, that's not in the current code unless I'm missing it, is that correct? Yes, it is. Ma'am, I'm looking at the exact thing that it references the code, and I'm not seeing that part. I mean, that's the new part being
added and underlined, correct? I mean, this part right here about the aggregated $50
Speaker 141
49:08
and that? It's in there. The reason is because, and I can have Director Sloan come up because I was asked about that, because when I originally wrote the bill, somehow I had written 500 and the drafter came back to me and said, do you want to raise the limit of what they currently have to report? And I said, no, no, I want to leave it the way that it is. The reason that it looks like there's a lot of new language in there, and we discussed this in the last meeting at length, is because previously previously, it had just indicated by reference, you have to do the same things that candidates
have to do. And as I had explained to Senator Ballinger, there was one tiny change that needed to be made because in the current IEC forms, they were not having to list whether the expenditure was for a candidate or against. They had to list the expenditure, the date, the candidate, and what type it was, but they didn't actually have to say for or against. and that was a clarification that I thought was needed. Well, you can no longer then by reference say you got to report the same thing candidates do because in the candidate section of it,
that's not in there because candidates never advocate against a candidate. So they just took the candidate information, transferred it into the bill, wrote it out and put that little line in there with the for or against. That's the only reason that that's delineated out. But before, everything that was in there had to be listed before. It was just done by reference to the candidate section of code. You can add anything to
Speaker 154
50:36
that, Director, if you can explain that better than I did. Sloan, if you can turn your mic on and introduce yourself, please.
Speaker 157
50:45
Graham Sloan, the Director of the Arts and Arts and Arts Commission. I would
Speaker 158
50:50
concur with what Representative De La Rosa has said, that existing law requires a group that is expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate to register and report. They have to report the same information as candidates and there wasn't a list of what that information was in, there's not a list in current law. It just says that they have to report the same information
required of candidates as set forth in 76207B1. And so this new added language is just pulling in the 76207B1 And then the only exception that it's not over there in 76207 is that number five, which would require the committee to if it's an ad, then say whether it was for or against a particular candidate
and the method that, you know, was it a radio ad, TV ad, newspaper ad, so forth. And that information really isn't pertinent to a candidate because they're gonna be running an ad for themselves. If they ran an ad for somebody else or against somebody else, that would not be a permissible use of campaign funds. And so I think most independent expenditure committees would be focused on one candidate or one race, but if you had a committee out there that wanted to expressly advocate the election
or defeat of more than one candidate, clearly identified candidate, then that requirement number five would just have them specify what was spent on each of those different candidates. But it's, again, this is existing law, with the exception of that number five. And it's express advocacy. And that's a bright line in campaign finance law that people can talk about issues all they want. The government doesn't regulate issue speech.
But when you switch over and you are expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, vote for Smith, vote against Jones, then that speech is currently regulated and if it was done in cooperation or consultation with a candidate, it would be a contribution to that candidate and be subject to the $2,700 limit. So independent expenditure is a method where somebody can spend far more than $2,700 on a particular race.
And, you know, but there are, you know, there are reporting requirements and, and this just takes that, the list that they're already required to
Speaker 157
53:28
do, and it's incorporated by reference in current law and spells it out. Question, Mr. Lowe? Senator Hickey, you look
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
53:37
like you're studying on this question. Okay. Any other questions? Would you like to close for you, Bill?
Speaker 146
53:51
I'm closed. I have no idea what you guys are going to do, but I'm closed. I guess
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
54:01
I'll find out. Okay. Pleasure of the committee. Motion to do pass, and I'd like to
comment if we get a chance to. I'll say it better. Okay. I'll
call it. Mr. Bond? Just as I said yesterday, I was not, I didn't think the re-referral was the correct thing to do, but also if someone can't come forward and be against the bill for whatever reason,
of course I haven't heard from those people, then that seems to me to be the very best reason that we need the bill. Thank you. So I appreciate my colleagues letting me
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
54:42
bring this back. I had strong concerns with it. I was going to bring it up in initial testimony, but got pulled out by Senator Hendren to run another bill, or I would have been here. It was just something that happened. Let me say that first, this initiated act in 1996 was done by Scott Trotter, and he did this draconian thing to our campaign finance law. And if you look at the court cases that came from that over and over and over again,
campaign finance law that he passed that initiated act was thrown out. They lowered the limit. that they lowered when we could raise money. They did that over and over again through that initiated act to change our campaign finance law. I think the only reason this wasn't challenged because it was written in such a way that it would actually help the citizens who were trying to get this done. What I will say is since that time, we did have Citizens United. And I know Senator Ballinger said he doesn't know if it does or does not affect it, but it directly impacts independent expenditures. And the thought process behind that is
when you have citizens doing this kind of behavior, It's their First Amendment free speech right to be able to do that and to take part in the political process. And by adding these kind of new regulations on that, we run afoul of the spirit and the legal intent behind that law. I mean, we could pass this if we wanted to, but I think that is going to have a severe constitutional challenge by these entities who want to do this. Here's the ultimate thing coming to it. When citizens want to raise money and use it in campaign related things, they have some reporting requirements. But if we go this far over the edge,
I think we're going to hurt the people that want to do it will have a chilling effect to them. It'll be a negative impact to our state and
our campaign law here in the state. So thank you,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
56:18
Mr. Chairman, for indulging me. Thank you. Representative De La Rosa, I know this has aggravated you and possibly rightfully so, but by the same token, we thought that this was of such importance and I knew specifically that I'd ask you if there was anybody against this and you said nobody had come forward. And I do understand they haven't come to you, but there was people that had come forward.
So we're just trying to get this right. I have every intention to vote for your bill. And I don't think that's a problem. We need to make sure we get all this right. And I have been arguing all session, these bills are full of mistakes. And if this body does not start being more deliberative with everything, going through this stuff, being a little more detailed, we're passing out statute, codifying all this language that is going into law.
People are out here saying, well, the intent was, I don't care what the intent was. It's the way that that's written, the way that, as Senator Bond said earlier, these people are gonna get out here and argue this, and it just, the intent doesn't make any difference whenever that's, we've written it that way. The way I see your bill is this. I understand exactly what Senator Garner is saying, But it appears like to me that we're gonna err on the side of caution with being more transparent with this.
And we're to the point with everything that has happened and transpired, some of the activities that we've seen, it's just a new day in time. And I think that there's no problem, if somebody wants to support somebody or they wanna put the money towards it, step up to the plate and say that you're doing it. Don't hide behind something, so I'm for your bill, but I do want to make those comments. And I understand you're aggravated, but don't be, because we need to do more of this at this body,
even if it's my bill, so I appreciate you bringing it.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
58:17
Thank you. Bounder, let me make a comment. We have to be
Speaker 132
58:24
out of this room at nine o'clock. Okay, I won't go long.
Speaker 28
58:28
And it is 8.59. Okay, this is the thing, is that I expressed most of what it might, I mean, obviously I felt like this process was flawed, but I also think that currently, you know, you use the illustration of the Chamber of Commerce, and it could be any individual.
They could go out right now and spend as much money as they want on a campaign, and as long as they don't collude, there's no reason why they can't do that. So, I mean, if they did collude, then there's collusion. The candidate is obligated there. As long as there's no collusion, they can spend as much money as they want. as it sits now, even if you like transparency, as it sits right now, there is some transparency when people come and work together to do campaign finance. What I think, if you put the same obligation that you have on candidates, and all of us sit there, right, and we have to try to figure out how to get the reports done,
you know, once a month, all that kind of stuff, you put that on some grassroots organization, and what will happen is it will disperse. People spend their own money. They won't work together to try to help a candidate, but they'll be spending their own money. I mean, I think in the end you're going to end up finding that it may actually, you know, hurt your effort for transparency. But like I said, from my standpoint, if you're talking about private citizens, private groups who have not subjected themselves to the public light, they should have no obligation for transparency. It should be their right to get involved in campaigns as long as they're not colluding with the candidate.
So for that reason, I'll vote no. And I'm sorry that we, like I was opposed to this last time, probably should have roll called it and wouldn't have made it out of committee, we wouldn't be back here doing this. But because of the process, I was a little frustrated about it, I
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:00:04
let it out. Thank you. With that said, it is nine o'clock. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. Roll call. Senator Sample
Speaker 168
1:00:22
Senator Hickey Senator Hester Senator Bond Senator Davis Senator Ballinger Senator Gardner Senator Gardner Your bill does not pass We're adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HJR1008 Vaught AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND THE PROCESS FOR THE SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED INITIATED ACTS, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, AND REFERENDA.
HB1893 J Della Rosa
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Apr 5, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 13
Speaker 18
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 28
Speaker 29
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 35
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Jerry Cox
Unverified
Speaker 64
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 81
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 101
Speaker 108
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 124
Speaker 110
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 141
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 148
Speaker 154
Speaker 157
Speaker 158
Speaker 132
Speaker 168