House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1913
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB 1913”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1855
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 1855”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2065
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 2065”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2066
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “presenting house bill 2066 no”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2078
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 2078”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2145
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 2145”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 5, 2026
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
0:00
But state law said if you die before Election Day, it doesn't count. So we started off with this bill and said, well, that rule ought to apply to everybody because we have early voting now that counts the day you cast your ballot. There were some concerns about fraud with absentee ballots in that instance, so we amended it and just made it applicable to service members so we'd be in compliance with federal law. Got down to the Senate end. Folks felt like that we ought to extend the same privilege under equal protection arguments to everybody. They amended it. So now if this committee concurs and the House concurs, then folks that cast their absentee ballots, if they die before Election Day, their ballot is going to count just as though they early voted. Everybody's happy, D's and R's alike. Thank you.
Speaker 3
0:51
Well, let's see if this committee's happy. Representative Altus. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative House, what if they die before they vote? Does it
Speaker 4
1:01
still count? You know, we have a lot of that
Speaker 8
1:11
going on in Arkansas. Yes, sir. I'm guessing that's facetious and not a serious question. It is somewhat
Speaker 10
1:16
serious. It is somewhat serious. Please excuse me. Sure. Go
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
1:19
ahead. People vote. they the secretary of state felt like putting it in there that if you
requested the ballot voted the ballot and delivered the ballot before the date of death that was a good that was a good safeguard against
Speaker 14
1:32
that happening in which one okay sounds good thank you
yes sir any other questions from committee no one has signed up to speak for or against
this bill representative Kerr I'll recognize you for that motion motion do pass madam chair the motion is do
Speaker 19
1:52
pass all those in favor aye all those opposed nay congratulations
Speaker 21
1:57
thank you madam chair man was to concur I apologize
motion to do pass as we read your minds thank you if
Speaker 26
2:15
may be excused thank you all right representative link I saw him in another committee representative Wilkins
okay let's let's make this easy who's in here to run a bill today goodness gracious several people said they wanted to and they're not here right
now I'm not recognizing that motion We're going to have just a few-minute recess here. Seriously, several of these people are running committees. Representative Catlett, you have a bill to run?
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
2:55
No, ma'am, I don't, and thank you for recognizing me, Madam Chair. I do not have one, but I have a question, ma'am, in reference to the constitutional amendments we're hearing.
Yes. Or the ones we're not hearing. Yeah. Well, I know we heard two yesterday, and I don't know. Will we have time to discuss those amongst ourselves, or just how do you plan for us to vet these amendments? That's a very good question. The discussion
kind of takes place as we're hearing the amendments. I mean, that's part of where, you know, you're asking questions, you're figuring it out. when discussing it among us and that's part of the process that I think should
take place historically has not historically what's taken place is they present just like a regular bill we ask questions of them back and forth we don't discuss this way just like a regular bill I agree with you and as far as doing it differently this year so I am meeting with staff that have a higher pay grade than I do and
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
4:03
figuring that out well I I think it'll help the process if we can converse back and forth amongst ourselves after we hear these
because some of us are not here we're out presenting our bills exactly other committees and for example I missed the first presentation constables yes yes ma'am and so I just wanted to to find out what your process is going to be I I appreciate it. I think it's a good, off the top of my head, since
we're kind of biding time until some of these people run in from other committees, off the top of my head, what we could do is get a list to all of you, and you guys mark on them the ones that are filled in, because many of them are still shell bills,
that you can mark on them which ones you want to bring back and discuss as a committee. I mean,
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
4:54
with that, we could do something like that. Yes, ma'am. I think that would be very helpful to
me. and I would thank other members also thank you and it's frustrating right now because so
many of them are shells and not filled in it's a little frustrating if I call a meeting and we're all tired you know we come back in the afternoon to meet again would you as a committee want to just wait until we have five or
six that are going to present before we meet again I mean I'm setting a meeting and then so you know all right then then that's what we'll do that's what we'll do and I'll make sure with staff that it's acceptable that we do questions this way normally it's just questions this way so thank you thank you for bringing that up representative Hodges do you have a bill to present this is exciting for us. Please come to the end of the table. Representative Altus, did you have
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
5:56
a question about the previous discussion? Yes, Madam Chair. Am I recognized? Yes, pardon me. You're recognized. Okay,
thank you. Have we put the shell bills on deferred? Yes, all show bills are on deferred now thank
Speaker 44
6:20
you representative Hodges which number are you presenting today health
bill 1913 1913 give the committee members a minute to bring it up on their tablets
please thank you we have a lot on here okay committee members 1913 representative Hodges you're
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
6:54
recognized Thank You madam chair and committee have House bill 1913 which is
part of the Municipal League package it's a existing bill but we just added special elections to it for the runoff municipal runoff and I have Kim Watson with me with the municipal league if you have any questions about the bill it should be a pretty simple bill my predecessor had it passed a couple years ago municipal runoff and we're just adding special elections to this bill any questions from committee members are you all
still trying to find it or I'm
seeing can okay please excuse me and by
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
7:45
the way I'm madam madam chair you're a very good dancer okay Representative
Hodges, that doesn't work in here. Representative Bell, you're recognized for a question. Madam Chair,
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
8:02
I'm not a very good dancer, and I'm pretty well aware of that.
Representative Hodges, I know you're a new member, but I was one of the more vocal opponents of this bill when your predecessor did pass it. Right. And I have a lot of concerns about us electing people without a majority of the vote. And an example of that is the North Little Rock mayoral race just this past year, where a candidate that would have met this threshold then subsequently did not become the mayor. And I'm very concerned that we continue to expand this where we're electing people without a majority of the votes cast.
And I guess that's not as much a question as it is a comment, but I know you don't agree, but why are we looking to expand this and elect more people without a majority
Speaker 63
9:01
of the vote? Do you want to ask that, Ken? Ken Watson
Speaker 64
9:05
with Arkansas Municipal League. Representative Bell the purpose of this bill again comes from our legal department and the Secretary of State's office there's some question about
whether or not that this is needed in other words there's some legal debate about whether or not this already applies and this is just an attempt to clarify that so there's special elections it's not there's not any question whatsoever that this is this is the intent of the law again I understand that
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
9:35
but I certainly would not be supportive of enlarging the that authority and if it's gray I prefer to keep it great just I guess we just have
Speaker 64
9:47
a difference of policy correct and again if you're like I said this is this is commonly and we refer to this as the Tommy Baker bill of course and then like you say if you were here two sessions ago this is when it was widely debated and you know it's the will of the General Assembly that this become the law so again what we're trying to do is clarify this for special elections yes sir
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
10:11
am I not correct that this exact situation occurred in North Little Rock with the mayoral race although I know it's not directly covered by this bill
but former representative Steele received more than 40% of the vote and did not subsequently become mayor that is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:38
any other represent Walker thank you that's
that's really not the steel situation was it he was required to have a majority so the steel situation is not possible
posit there but what community what size communities would be affected
representative hi just by
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
10:59
this bill represent walk all all all so
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:03
that would mean a municipality of
a thousand or less okay well I'm I sort of share a representative bills concern here about at least giving the
appearance that majority rule does not control what's
Speaker 64
11:25
the justification for that the justification is that our research has indicated that there's seldom a situation in which a person that did not receive the the threshold that we're talking about here did not become and all the subsequent elections did not receive the majority the next time it was just an effort to again probably reduce the cost of another election all right so you cut your sacrificing a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:59
basic fundamental premise of democracy majority vote in order to save a few dollars that may not even be a few dollars is that correct I would disagree agree with that that summation yes sir are you all really strongly in support of this bill again this was brought to us understand but I'm asking now since you're there at the end of the table are you
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
12:28
all strong in support of this bill yes thank you representative Catlett madam chair I appreciate you recognizing me and sir
I'm looking at this bill reading it and the only thing you've done is change one word to shell and the other one their special election is that correct yes okay so we already do these things that these gentlemen are arguing about right now I mean it's already the law all we're doing is applying it to the to a special election that's correct thank you
Speaker 81
13:00
thank you madam chair thank you representative Dotson I realize this this is a speculating on another bill but how would this be affected if all the
special elections are actually moved to the general election times I can't
Chair
Unverified
13:22
answer that at this point without doing a little more research
thank you I did not see anyone signed up to speak for against this and I have no other committee members with questions representative Altus I'll recognize you
for that motion the motion is do pass all those in favor I all those opposed nay the nose habit
Speaker 3
13:49
representative Hodges better luck next time thank you madam chair thank you committee I have a few cleanup bills
that I don't have a co chair to run
right now I just looked and he stepped outside representative Hobbs could you please come up here and run this while I do this thank you
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
14:46
sir 2065 yes two zero
Speaker 91
14:50
six six okay okay you're recognized ma'am to present that bill
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
15:01
and please have your guests identify himself I'm Rob Hammonds director of elections secretary
Speaker 93
15:06
of state's office thank you sir it's it's okay we're
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
15:14
gonna give the members a few minutes to pull the bill Hold up.
are we there did everybody pull up
the bill I'm assuming they have so representably you're recognized to present
Speaker 76
16:09
your bill thank you Mr. Chairman Bill 2065 as you can tell
adds district judge that's a new addition as we changed and it made so many dip pardon me made so
many district judgeships it also changes the dates on filing if you see on page two and on page three it's the addition that a candidate shall not circle to circulate a petition before submitting it to the
Secretary of State and receiving approval of its form and the rest of it is
Speaker 103
16:53
just adding that language in two other places
Speaker 105
16:56
in the code questions representative Nichols
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:06
approval has to form now and some of the materials I think that we received from the Secretary of State or Ethics Commission it has forms in that book for certain candidates to utilize that as a Secretary of State will be developing comparable forms that the candidates can
Speaker 108
17:27
use those are just guidelines that we set forth it's just something for them to base theirs off of just as an example if that's if the bill passes in the way We go
Speaker 105
17:43
forward with producing some forms, yes. Okay,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:48
thank you. Question, Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. What's the necessity for having preapproval by the Secretary of State's office on something that's rather routine and regular?
I'm trying to understand why you've got to get preapproval from the Secretary of State to
run for District Judge. The bill doesn't state that. the bill states that the form needs to be
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:09
approved I understand it's the same thing that representation Lee if the form hasn't been approved and then that means that whatever the person does he can't he or she can't run and if he or she has a form that has already been approved by the Secretary of State and it's and has submitted it and then somehow another gets on the election and
he or she wins then the Secretary of State can decline to approve the person So that's really pre-approval, and I don't understand the justification for having any person who runs for office have to get the pre-approval of some other elected official. I'd like to know that justification. I don't think that's
– well, I know that's not the intent of the bill. I understand your
question, I think. The intent is to make sure that the form matches up with other forms. The Secretary of State would be just as anyone who's going to run for office has to get the proper form from the Ethics Commission rather than just come up with a piece of paper where they write on the top of the piece of paper, I'm running for judge, do you like me enough, please sign this.
There has to be some order, and the Secretary of State is simply wanting to dovetail with the Ethics Commission here in approval of the forms, not of the candidate themselves, and the intent is not to do that. may I follow up No,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:32
I don't think that we as representatives have to give the approval of the Secretary of State for our form And some other offices to my knowledge don't have to get the pre-approval of the Secretary of State Why should any one person any one office be singled out?
For having the form approved by the Secretary of State the other thing is this that creates a lot of of costs the person and takes time. Whoever the person is running has to at least go through some kind of a process for obtaining that approval. There's nothing in here that addresses what happens when the Secretary of State denies
a form or approval of a form. I mean, what happens? Well, first off,
I would respectfully disagree with you. All of us have to fill out pre-approved
forms when we run for office even when we're a state representative state senator etc when we when we run for office all of think of
the forms you had to fill out when you came down here and filed for office they
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:38
were pre-approved forms but I'm not disagreeing with
that I'm just a few minutes ago you singled out and said that why are district judges being singled out all of the forms all All of us filled out were pre-approved by the Secretary of State's office and our political
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:54
parties. Here's my point. If you have a pre-approved form, then one
ought to be able to pull that off the website. And they will be able to, sir. So that's different. So a person doesn't have to have it submitted to the Secretary of State and then have the Secretary of State sign
off on it and say it's okay. I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. And I don't want to mix the intent with the possible bad wording here.
The intent was not what you just stated, and that was to single out a district judge as having to do something separate under the Secretary of State. So it may be the wording here that you're having the problem with. I do. Do
Speaker 123
21:41
you want to have some time to change that? Gladly, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 124
21:49
Representative Blade, do you intend to pull your bill
down at this time? Please. Yes, sir. I will pull 2065 down at this time and look at the wording of that sentence.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
22:00
Are you prepared to present House Bill 2? You know what? I'm
seeing other representatives that have come into the room. I was a timed filler, so I will pass on this right now and let some of other representatives who have come in to run their bills. Thank you, ma'am.
I do not see Representative Hammer. I see Representative Shepard. I thought I saw representative hammer if anyone sees him in the hallway grab him back
Speaker 7
23:00
in here representative Ward law do you also have a bill to run in here today everyone keeps pointing you out
to me okay say that again uh-huh okie-doke um
representative Shepherd you're running the number please house bill 1855 okay
give the members a minute to pull it up there's an amendment to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
23:50
the bill Representative Shepard you're recognized thank you members I guess initially I'm
presenting an amendment to House Bill 1855 this is some cleanup language the Secretary of State's office asked for with regard to House Bill 1855 and so I
Speaker 136
24:04
would ask that that this that you allow this amendment do I see a motion on
the amendment representative Catlett moves adopt the amendment all those in favor all supposed you're recognized mr. Shepard
Speaker 24
24:25
thank you house bill 1855 does a couple things it cleans up
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:29
some language for the Secretary of State's office and then it also would provide for the office of prosecuting attorney to be nonpartisan however it does not move the runoff to know it does not move the runoff up to May for judicial races prosecuting attorneys and judicial races would be in November of course this committee passed out another bill that that would have made prosecuting attorneys nonpartisan In the course of that discussion, the Secretary of State's office came to me with some additional clean-up language, so we rolled this all into one bill.
The runoff, again, is in November. I know there were some concerns about moving it to May, about voter turnout. The runoff for prosecuting attorneys and judges will be in November, and this makes prosecuting attorneys nonpartisan, and I would
appreciate a good vote. So you saw the wisdom
and went back to my original bill? from four years ago or two yeah four
Speaker 34
25:26
years ago any questions for no comment representative bill motion at the proper time madam chair representative Walker did I see your
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:39
hand up yes you did representative Shepard what's changed other than the the time for election between this bill between between this bill and the one that we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
25:55
defeated on the floor well the primary thing is the time for the runoff and then additionally there is cleanup language throughout some of which is in the amendment some of which is in the actual builds and the Secretary of State's office asked that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:11
we that we clarify a few things. Well, my concern is still the same, and that is historically a
political position. It's historically been determined by the voters every two years, and it's been historically somewhat partisan. At least we know which party a person is running for running for against just like the Attorney General I see no distinction from the Attorney
General's position and the question becomes why why is it necessary to make this nonpartisan especially when most of the prosecutors the Democrat they probably they probably not really Democrat but they rather run his report they're probably run as Republican or neutral now I'm I'm trying to understand why you don't have people just leave it so that people can stand up
and be counted, irrespective of what the political inclinations are. Thank you, Representative Walker.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
27:13
And I recall last time you raised the issue about your feeling was that some Democrats wanted to shed the party label. I would remind you I'm a Republican, so if that were somewhat of my motivation, would I be here today? I'm here because I think it's the right thing to do. With regard to your point about the Attorney General, as we know, the Attorney General's office has a lot of leeway, as Representative Lee knows in particular, to spend monies on various projects and programs. Additionally, the Attorney General's office makes determinations with regard to defending the constitutionality of legislation that we pass, as well as taking action on consumer protection issues.
Prosecuting attorneys don't have that broad a scope. prosecuting attorneys are to enforce the law and prosecute those who break the law that's it and again throughout this debate over the last several years no one has told me or has been able to either in committee or on the floor has been able to point out what distinction there is between a Republican and a Democrat prosecuting attorney and again we're not prohibiting those individuals who want to participate in partisan activities, we're not prohibiting them from supporting,
from identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats. We're just simply saying on the ballot, it's going to be a nonpartisan ballot. There's not going to be any party identification there. And, you know, I understand that the parties may be against this, but ultimately, I believe this is the right thing to do. And if I didn't think so, I wouldn't be back down here for the second time. Representative Steele is of course the co-sponsor he's he would be here but he's running AG committee while we're taking
up debate on raw milk today so I
think it's the right thing to do and I would appreciate
Speaker 43
29:10
a good vote did you have any further questions representative Walker okay representative over be did I see you motion for a question no
okay any other questions from committee members no one has signed up in the public to speak for or against this bill so what is the
will of the committee representative bill do pass madam chair the motion is do pass all those as
amended miss Thomas read your mind all those in favor I I suppose nay the ayes have it I do not see two hands I see
Speaker 151
30:18
hand for a roll call two hands we're gonna roll call it Thank you.
representative curve representative Altus representative Altus representative Catlett representative Westerman Westerman and representative Hickerson representative Overby
Speaker 152
30:50
representative Overby represent of Walker represent of Bale represent
Speaker 151
31:01
of Ritchie representative Dotson represent Miller
represent of Hutchinson representative Hutchinson represent Wagner represent of Wilkins represent of Wilkins the motion passes 11 to 1 Thank You committee
Speaker 121
31:41
has anyone seen representative hammer if you don't mind waiting just a few minutes
Speaker 155
32:11
represent a bill you have something to run come to
the end of the table 2078 okay give us a second
Speaker 158
32:33
while everyone's looking I give you a little background if you'd like this bill came
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
32:39
to my attention after we had a bill presented this committee a couple weeks or maybe it seems like a couple of weeks ago but recently regarding some issues in the capital zoning district and as I looked into that there's been a lot of discussion recently about fence heights and when you look at private property in Arkansas we we place a pretty high value on private property
rights it's enshrined in our Constitution that private property is the most important right in this state and that we should do everything we can to preserve that right as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others as I looked at excuse me as I looked at it this bill is a pretty simple bill it simply says that capital zoning district will not place restrictions on fence heights that are under 48 inches the rationale for this is pretty simple
there are a lot of poor folks that live in this district and you heard me say this some and during the arguments regarding the previous bill who simply can't afford the cost of some of the very expensive fencing that it takes to comply with this when 48 inch fencing is commonly available and many of the shorter heights that the 40 inch height the specimen that's currently required are not available and in preparation for looking at this I did do quite a bit of background research I went and looked at what compliant fence costs at Lowe's per
section it's $49.99 for an eight-foot section I had one of the architects who lives in the district say all this 40-inch fence is available why don't you go take a look at it I did it's $27 a lineal foot that same eight-foot section that cost $49.99 at Lowe's at $27 a lineal foot is approaching two hundred and fifty dollars for that same eight-foot section I looked at cut well
can we have a custom shop fabricate this over $500 for an eight-foot section when you look at the cost for an average income person to put a fence up the cost is dramatically different and the bottom line is we're simply with with zoning rules infringing on these people's rights to put a fence up for nothing more than a few people don't like it cosmetically it's impossible in my mind to make a case that eight inches in fence height infringes on anyone else's
ability to enjoy their property and that's why I'm here today I believe that it's appropriate that we allow folks who can't afford this expensive fencing to have a fence around their yard if they'd like like to do so the purpose of the bill and I would appreciate
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
35:40
any questions and a good vote represent Nichols why is a representative from Mena Arkansas
running the bill about the capital zoning district I mean I guess I'm just a little confused about why
fence heights would interest somebody from MENA well
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
35:57
as I explained earlier representative Nichols I wasn't even aware of the issue until we had a bill come in front of us that got me interested in looking into it and as you know I'm a strong advocate for private property rights and I began to look and it's clear that people's rights aren't are being stepped on by this the capital zoning district is maintained to preserve the capital and its surroundings for the people of Arkansas and as a citizen state of Arkansas and a representative of some of those people I have just as much interest in that as
Speaker 161
36:30
anyone else should but I believe you're also an advocate for local control I am and if you want to do away with the capital
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
36:41
zoning district we can certainly have that debate but so now you want us to legislate on the height of the fence
based upon the prices you've obtained from Lowe's I
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
36:52
want us to step back and allow people more rights to do things on their own property based on the desire to see us stay out of their business as much as possible but I just
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
37:09
find as interesting the representative Bell but you know if this I guess if we pass it we
Speaker 161
37:16
pass it well once again that that zoning district also you know belongs to
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
37:21
the people of the state not just the local people so it's important that we all review what what takes place there is
that it represent Nichols okie I have someone in the audience to speak against it oh please excuse me
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
37:39
representative Walker thank you chairman Lee does something that someone from the capital zoning Commission asked you to do
Speaker 166
37:49
this no sir I have not spoken with anyone on the capital zoning Commission regarding this bill so this is unilateral
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
37:59
intersection on your part I guess anytime any of us bring a bill representative Walker it's unilateral intervention on some level but as a member of this body each of us has the right to run legislation based on our
beliefs on preserving freedom and that's what I'm doing in this case so you're
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
38:18
here only as an advocate for
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
38:21
freedom none of us are here only in that capacity sir but again we have a lot of folks in that district who can't afford the expensive fence who have needs to be able to fence their property and the cost differential between readily available retail fence
and custom price and architecturally specified fences is quite drastic are you aware that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
38:43
according to the United States census data that is one of the highest income since this tracks in the state of Arkansas I am so how can you justify this on a can't afford basis
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
38:54
not everyone in that district is wealthy
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
38:57
sir I see. So you're striking a blow
Speaker 26
39:03
for poor people. I wouldn't go that far, sir. Okay. Okay. All right.
Speaker 172
39:09
Any other questions from committee members? Well, I
thought someone was signed up to speak against it, but they are signed up to speak against another bill number.
Speaker 26
39:24
You haven't signed up to speak against it. if you'd like to come sign the sheet representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
39:41
Hickerson just one one very quick question you said you had not talked to capital zoning Commission about this no ma'am no one's approached me
Speaker 161
39:50
about the bill sir no one on capital zoning Commission's approached
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
39:56
me about to go and you but and you did not call and talk to them to see if they would
maybe look at this issue and change this they have repeatedly denied requests
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
40:04
for waivers for several people based on what up my knowledge of the recent history but
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
40:11
but you did but you didn't talk to them or or they didn't
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
40:16
contact you or anything no ma'am as I said it's been made pretty clear on the record that they don't intend to allow this
okay thank you all right Boyd mayor has signed up to speak against this
Speaker 180
40:33
thank you madam chair Boyd mayor I'm the director of capital zoning district Commission I'm a little winded hustled up here watching the live stream on the internet thank
Speaker 180
40:47
observer that's great our agency is opposed to this bill we're charged with protecting the historic character in the neighborhoods around the governor's mansion in the state capital our agency determined sometime back that historically the fence heights in these old neighborhoods was about 40 inches high now we can grant waivers to that
height requirement and do it often it's only incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed fence will not detract from the historic character of the neighborhood the 40-inch rule is only what can be approved at the staff level people can get approved for higher fences than that they just have to take their case
to the Commission will you take questions absolutely I have a question how often has the difference between a 40 and a 48 inch height the fence been denied
Speaker 182
41:35
by your Commission once that I know ever
Speaker 8
41:41
any other questions from committee members representative Hickerson and what was
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
41:45
the reason if you don't mind my asking for the denial of that that was it because of the type of fence or or was it because of the
Speaker 182
41:55
height no it wasn't the style of the fence it was the height it was an exceptionally
Speaker 180
42:01
historic home it was actually the the former governor's mansion before our current one was built it was a really important property and our Commission just felt like that maintaining the historic character of this very special property
was of utmost importance and so they they denied that fence that's that's the only time I know that it's ever happened representative Hutchison did
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
42:24
you have a question yes ma'am thank you madam chair I guess this is a proper question is this been the whole problem with all this to start with this fence is that a a proper question would
Speaker 182
42:39
you think it it hasn't been a problem for us I mean y'all
Speaker 180
42:45
was here not too long ago right right yeah that was on that was on a different matter that other bill talked about sending violations
Speaker 43
42:58
of our rules to Little Rock District Court but that's that's not germane to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
43:04
this thank you any other questions from committee members please excuse me Walker representative Walker this was prompted by another member of the committee whose name I won't disclose but
was this person who was seeking the waiver a poor
Speaker 180
43:15
person I we don't collect information on our applicants financial backgrounds all I know it was a doctor and a lawyer a young couple representative Richie you guys are in good
Speaker 103
43:36
moods today aren't you representative Clemmer the question was asked
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
43:41
thank you madam chair the question was asked how many you had turned down how many have you approved I
Speaker 180
43:47
can think of I've been with the agency just I have three years I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
43:51
can think of two off the top of my head so you've only
Speaker 180
43:57
had three look up three requests a lot of people request the 40 inch fence and staff approves those you know usually while you wait oh my goodness we may have done a dozen or more of those
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
44:06
those are pretty regular you've only had three requests for something higher there's something taller all right thank you very
Speaker 8
44:14
much thank you very much mr. mayor for being here today I see no other questions Madam Chair, could I question the witness?
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
44:21
I'm just into the table, but I'm still
Speaker 180
44:31
a member of the committee. Yes. Do you have any pending applications? Yes, there's one right now. It's actually a reapplication of the one that got denied a couple years ago. We will review it without prejudice. and would
Speaker 194
44:43
you mind telling the committee who that application who has that application pending the applicant the applicant is a mr. Cowan and you have no
Speaker 180
44:55
other applications no I don't have anything else I don't have any other applications for fences pending right now
Speaker 8
45:06
thank you okay see see no further questions I'm assuming representative bill you're moving do pass yes ma'am the motion is do pass all those in
favor aye all those opposed nay the motion fails thank
Speaker 146
45:18
you madam chair committee members thank you
Speaker 7
45:25
madam chair members of committee representative hammer are you back in the room please take the end of the table and you're here to
present bill number two one four five and there
is an amendment so we will need to adopt the amendment and madam
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:48
chair for the sake of time I invite someone to the end of the table please be able to answer some questions if they are asked
Speaker 24
45:56
two one four five two one four five it is difficult
Speaker 8
46:05
jumping around committee members thanks for your patience ready madam chair it looks like
well we've got people nodding yes and no why don't you go ahead
and present your amendment representative hammer thank
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:34
you the amendment is actually the main contents of a shell bill it was filed to keep the
door open so that I could bring to the committee's attention hopefully the whole body a matter to expand charitable immunity for churches or other places of worship that also are polling sites on those days when the church or other places of worship is used for a polling site and basically what this is is a layer of protection for those
churches that extend their facilities to be used for public polling sites there's been at least one issue I know of in which a situation happened that a church allowed themselves and for a lengthy time they had allowed themselves to be used as a polling site a voter came in who unfortunately happened to be a member of that church came in and and what I would refer to as a frivolous situation occurred and as a result of it that individual is able to sue that
church and today that church is no longer a polling site and I believe that there is a trend that is being established that would require that we would offer these institutions these churches are well to open up their doors to the public in order to come in and exercise their right to vote provide them a layer of a shield of protection so that we can maintain having those places and with me today is Mr. Tim Humphries who is legal counsel for the State Board of Commissioner if you would like to ask him any questions and I'll
be glad to answer any questions at this time about this bill since it's a shell bill we are still talking
Speaker 200
48:20
about the amendment but it is basically the bill so
Speaker 26
48:24
it's okay and I would ask for a good vote on the amendment please let's go ahead
and do that at this time do I have a motion to adopt the amendment representative Altus thank you all those in favor aye all those
Speaker 201
48:41
opposed the amendments adopted mr. Humphreys did you have comments is representative
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
48:46
Nichols Mr. Hammer you mentioned a particular incident that caused you to come up with this bill can you did that church had they waived their charitable immunity by opening up a polling their their church to as a polling location I mean, a church would have charitable immunity.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:17
Would you agree with that? I'm probably not as proficient on the law as a gentleman sitting next to the right of me. If you
Speaker 201
49:27
defer and let him answer that question, then I'll follow up if that's okay. Okay. I don't think that the church waived his charitable immunity by opening itself up as a polling place. I don't know what the outcome of this lawsuit was. and I'll tell you the truth I really haven't studied this issue that closely I just sort of I read the the amendment this morning but I can tell you that
anything that gives institutions such as churches a greater comfort level like this something that's specifically in the law that will give them a greater comfort level you know churches are often the only accessible polling sites that a county election commission can find in a given precinct churches are good sources of accessible locations to have polling sites so I think anything that the legislature can do to increase their comfort level specifically will
help election commissions be able to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
50:27
find those accessible polling sites now when you are the election officials that are conducting the election I assume that they have an immunity based upon their their their public entities is that correct right so if if churches have not waived their charitable immunity and the people conducting the elections have immunity other than
comfort level I just don't see a legal reason for having this mr. hammer can you give us a little bit more background on this one incident you're you have I'll be
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:09
glad to do that and I would also make extend this offer
to the chair as we are bumping up against the hour and you're putting on
Speaker 24
51:19
your purse I'm sorry I have a school that is arriving here in a few minutes please excuse me putting on my purse that's interesting but I'm a man
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:31
Mr. Nichols, what happened in this case was, as I mentioned a while ago, a church member came to vote at the church. The church member slipped and fell, I believe, was what happened. In turn, turned around and sued the church and was awarded a claim on the basis of that. He was in there in dual role situation as a church member and as a voter. His primary reason for being there at that time was not so much that he was a church member, but he was a voter. And as a result of that, because of the liability that the church was exposed to,
they no longer are a polling site. And that's where I voted. That's part of why I know about this. So, you know, they were doing everything right, but it seems like everything wrong was applied against them. Now, as I understand this law as it's drafted, it provides exclusions in the event that a church or place of worship that's acting in its capacity in bad faith or acts grossly negligent, recklessly, or intentionally, they're not necessarily relieved from it. What this bill will do, in my opinion, and I'm not the lawyer,
but what this bill will do is provide an extra layer of shield against frivolous lawsuits and prevent churches from being targeted by people who may purposely go in there and take advantage of that church because
they're extending good faith to be a member of the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
52:53
community and open up their place to vote. Of course, I don't know much about the facts as you just related them, but it sounds like an outcome that I would not have expected,
but I'm afraid if we just use anecdotal information or one incident to blanket all churches with immunity, it causes me a little bit of concern. May I respond to that? May I respond to that?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:24
Yes. Thank you. Well, how many times down here
do we sit and deal with things because of one circumstance,
and how many times has one circumstance led to somebody who wants to take advantage of somebody else seeing it as a case in order to go on and do something and then recite back to that and use it to their advantage. At the end of the day, and I'm a pastor of a church, at the end of the day, and keep
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
53:58
in mind... What does the Scripture say about suing folks? Well,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:04
in my church what it says is, don't sue your church is what it says in my church.
But keep in mind, we're asking for just a limited time of which they're in there during that period of time
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
54:25
for voting purposes. Mr. Walker, questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, here I have several
concerns. First, you talk about a frivolous lawsuit. Do you have any evidence that this claim that was asserted was frivolous?
I mean, you know, that's something people use all the time, but there's nothing to establish that the matter involved was frivolous, is there? Well, I'm going to appeal
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:53
to the chair. We're two, three minutes before we're supposed to be upstairs, and I'll be glad to come
back and pick up the line of question
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
55:02
at the function of the chair. I think, Representative Hamer, that would be a good ideal if you're willing to table it temporarily and come back next Wednesday so we can hear this in its entirety and give everybody a chance to question it.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
55:20
do that. I'll make a motion table. Mr. Chair, tabling's going to deny him control of
Speaker 198
55:27
his bill. We just need to let him tell his bill down. Yeah,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:31
tabling's not the right. I would be glad to pull the bill down. Pull the bill down until next Wednesday. Thank you. Well, you may not sue, you're going to stay faithful. It should be in church.
Agenda
HB 1913
HB 2065
HB 1855
HB 2078
HB 2145
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 4
Speaker 8
Speaker 10
Speaker 14
Representative Allen Kerr Chair
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 44
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Speaker 67
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 81
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 87
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 93
Speaker 76
Speaker 103
Speaker 105
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 123
Speaker 124
Speaker 7
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 24
Speaker 34
Speaker 43
Speaker 150
Speaker 151
Speaker 152
Speaker 121
Speaker 155
Speaker 158
Speaker 161
Speaker 166
Speaker 172
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 180
Speaker 133
Speaker 182
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 194
Speaker 146
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 216
Speaker 198