February 25, 2013
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (18)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1307
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1307”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1360
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1360”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1192
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1192”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1265
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “Morning hours ended. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1265. House Bill”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1276
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “I'll oppose. Say no. I have it. Clinchers, adopted. Read House Bill 1276.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1326
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1326”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1399
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “passed the bill. Read House Bill 1399. House Bill 1399, Representative Farrar, decreed the Volunt…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1017
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “Read House Resolution 1017, Mr. Clerk. House”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1383
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1383”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1388
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1388”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1123
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…we, your Committee on Joint Retirement, to whom is referred House Bill 1123 and 1125, beg lead report. We had the same under considerat…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1270
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…a's one day and zero present you have passed the bill read house bill 1270 represent hammer moose clincher all in favor say aye All ri…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1278
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “present. You have passed the bill. Mr. Clerk, pass over House Bill 1278, read House Bill 1383.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1283
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1283”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1389
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1389”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1401
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1401”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1412
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1412”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1014
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Representative, we're going to pass over House Resolution 1014.”
|
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 4, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
And I thank you for the chance for us to come and do the work of the people, and I pray that your blessings will be on the representatives as they serve. Lord, I thank you that they've had a chance for the weekend and come in well-rested, and I pray that you'll bless today and bless this week. Your word tells us again in the book of Romans that you have established governments, and governments are honorable. And so, Lord, I thank you for their willingness to serve and the honor of their service, and I pray you will bless them in that service. Give them wisdom, give them strength as they work through all the things that they face today.
Father, bless them as they serve. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen. I
Speaker 3
0:42
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which we stand, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Members, please
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
0:56
indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Cast with the ballots, there are 99 members present. The chair sees a quorum. Are there any requests for leave? Representative Westerman, you recognize. Representative Alexander. Leave granted for Representative Alexander. Leave is granted. Representative James L. Word moves we dispense for the reading of the previous day's journal. No objection, so order. Are there reports from select committees? Read the reports, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 13
1:54
Mr. Speaker, we, your Committee on Joint Retirement, to whom is referred House Bill 1123 and 1125, beg lead report. We had the same under consideration here. We have to return the same with the recommendation that they do pass, respectively submitted. Representative Alan Kerr, Chairman. Are there reports
from standing committees? Is there any unfinished business? Are there any executive communications?
Representative, we're going to pass over House Resolution 1014.
Read House Resolution 1017, Mr. Clerk. House
Speaker 13
2:34
Bill 1017, Representative Bell commending the Homes for Our Troops organization for its work on behalf of wounded veterans and for selecting Arkansas veterans as recipients of
Speaker 19
2:43
specially adapted homes. Representative Bell, you're recognized to explain
the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
2:57
Colleagues, this resolution is to honor homes for our troops. Over the last
couple of years, they have made sure that two wounded veterans who were double amputees in our state have received barrier-free homes and are helping to continue to provide those resources to people all around the state and in other states as well. I just ask you to concur with this resolution and have the resolution written in its entirety. Mr. Clerk, read the resolution.
Speaker 13
3:31
Whereas Home for Our Troops is a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to helping veterans who have selflessly given to our country and have returned home with serious disabilities and injuries, and whereas Homes for Our Troops assist severely injured veterans and their immediate families by raising donations of money, building materials and professional labor, and by coordinating the process of building homes that provide maximum freedom of movement and the ability for injured veterans to live more independently,
and whereas the homes provided by Homes for Our Troops are given at no cost to the veterans served by Homes for Our Troops, And whereas Homes for Our Troops is one of the highest-rated military and veterans charity, as rated by Charity Navigator and the Best Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. And whereas, in addition to numerous other veterans throughout the United States, Homes for Our Troops has selected two Arkansans to receive homes. Marine Sergeant Marshall Kennedy, who lost both of his legs and suffered severe damage to his left arm
after stepping on an improvised explosive device in Sangin, Afghanistan on June 13, 2011, and Army Sergeant Marco Robledo, who was left a double amputee after an improvised explosive device explosion in Tajik, Iraq on May 7, 2007. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 8th and 9th General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the House of Representatives express a sincere appreciation to Homes for Our Troops
for helping injured and disabled veterans transition to civilian life by providing specially adapted, barrier-free homes and commends Homes for Our Troops for its outstanding contribution in bettering the lives of wounded veterans and their families. Be it further resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, a copy be mailed to the Executive Director of Homes for Our Troops
Speaker 19
5:28
and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Members, I'd just
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
5:36
appreciate it if each of you would take the time to encourage folks in your communities to support this good organization,
and if you have available funds and resources, to consider a contribution. Thanks. I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Bell has explained the resolution. Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution? For the resolution, if not the question before the House, the passage of House Resolution 1017. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Motion carries. Resolution is
adopted. At this time, I'd like to welcome our
Speaker 28
6:10
Doctor of the Day, Dr. Brian H. Clardy of Fort Smith.
Morning hours ended. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1265. House Bill
Speaker 13
6:25
1265, by Representatives Broadway et al., amending the form of notice required when a small estate is distributed without administration. Representative Broadway, you're recognized to
explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
6:51
and thank you for your indulgence on Friday.
Members, this bill, I apologize, but is a bit mistitled in that it says that it amends the form of notice required when a small estate is distributed without administration. It actually creates a form. When a person passes away, it's very often that their estate does not have to be probated if that estate is valued at less than $100,000. However, in order to pass clear title to real property, one must publish notice in a newspaper to ensure that all claims against passage of that title are barred.
So often when someone that does not have to outright probate an estate, they represent themselves pro se, which means on their own. And they don't know exactly what forms to publish and what to do. This form provides them a go-by for when they publish notice of this proceeding in the newspaper. That's what it is. There was no opposition. In fact, ATLA approved it, as did the Bar Association. And with that, I would ask for a good vote. Thank you.
Representative Broadway has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill.
Speaker 28
8:04
If not, the question before the House is passed
Speaker 36
8:15
to House Bill 1265. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 28
8:20
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots for 96 yeas, zero nays, and one present. You have
Speaker 13
8:32
passed the bill. Read House Bill 1399. House Bill 1399, Representative Farrar, decreed the Volunteer Firefighter Tax Protection Act.
Representative Farrar, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
8:46
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is it gives voluntary firefighters a $1,000 tax deduction for any damages to the personal property while performing their duties and any equipment that they buy to perform their duties. The bill would give the same benefits to the voluntary firefighters as it does to the paid firefighters we have now. The fiscal impact on this is less than $50,000.
DF&A figured $1,000 per firefighter at a 7% tax rate, and they estimated about half of the firefighters would take advantage of this. I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 42
9:21
Thank you. Representative Farrar has explained the bill. Does anyone
wish to speak against the bill for the bill? Representative Thompson, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Chair
Unverified
9:36
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. fellow members when i got home this weekend i sat down with two different chiefs of my
local volunteer fire departments of which there's 28 in my district they have equipment they've got firehouses they've got fire trucks the p the thing they don't have is people out in the rural areas. They don't have enough volunteers. And this will certainly serve as an incentive to help recruit folks to be on your volunteer fire departments. I'm speaking in favor of it.
And I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Thompson has spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill
for the bill? Representative Bell, you're recognized to speak for the
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
10:38
bill. Members, I've spent many years as a volunteer firefighter, and one of the things that has always been a
problem when you start looking at the effects on the lives of firefighters is the fact that you burn up your good boots, you burn up your clothes, you ruin a lot of things in the line of duty.
and our paid firefighters in the state are currently able to deduct that because they have income to deduct it against, while the volunteers, because they receive no income, are not able to deduct this off their taxes. And this simply equalizes that and allows those volunteers the same courtesy that we extend to our paid firefighters. So I'll ask you for a good vote.
Representative Bell has spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not, the question before the House, the passage of House Bill 1399. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 97 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present, you have passed the bill. Members, at this time I'd like to
welcome visitors in our gallery today. In the West Gallery, we have the 7th and 8th grade students from Our
Speaker 52
11:49
Lady of Fatima in Benton, Arkansas. Guests are Representative Kim Hammer and Ann Clemmer.
Additionally, as guests of the Northwest Arkansas delegation, we have the Northwest Arkansas Community College students and trustees. Mr. Clerk,
read House Bill 1307. House
Speaker 13
12:23
Bill 1307 by Representatives Copenhaver and Catlett to allow medical waiver window tinting to be the same as regular law enforcement vehicles.
Chair
Unverified
12:34
Representative Copenhaver, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Harold Copenhaver
Unverified
12:39
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dear members, House Bill 1307 is to allow medical waiver window tinting to be the same as regular law enforcement vehicles. Currently, you and I have guidelines to follow when we get our windows tinted. This, of course, is for your safety and the safety of all law enforcement officers. But there are no guidelines for an individual who possesses a medical waiver.
They can basically tint or paint their windows black if they so desire. This, of course, leaves all law enforcement officers vulnerable. This bill merely applies to the same level of window tinting as law enforcement officers, which is 5 percent more than the public. While presenting this in the Transportation Committee, Representative Payton, who specializes in automobile industry, mentioned in adding a full disclosure to the bill. This would mean an owner of a vehicle would have to disclose he had a medical waiver, which was darker tending to someone who was purchasing the vehicle without.
We agreed to that, and we took it back to committee. It passed unanimously. Your local police, your county sheriff's department, and your state police would appreciate a good vote on this bill. Representative Copenhaver has explained the
bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not, the question before the House, passage of House Bill 1307. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 94 yeas, 95 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 present. You have passed the bill. Read
Speaker 13
14:26
House Bill 1388. House Bill 1388 by Representative Holcomb to repeal certain outdated laws concerning county bridges. Representative Holcomb, you
recognize, to explain the bill. Well, thank you,
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
14:40
Mr. Speaker and members of the House.
First of all, I just want to tell you what an
honor it is for me to serve in this Assembly and one of the highlights of my life to be able to stand before you today. What I bring to you is a simple request from the Association of Arkansas Counties, and actually House Bill 1388 is simple because all it does is just delete old, outdated information that does not apply anymore. After the passage of Amendment 55, the reconstruction of county government, all of these responsibilities went to the county court, so all this is obsolete, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
Thank you. Representative Holcomb has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to
Speaker 28
15:20
speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill
1388. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots to 95 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have
Speaker 13
15:45
passed the bill. Read House Bill 1326. House Bill 1326, Representative Wright, concerning the carrying of a concealed handgun by a member of the Parole Board, an investigator employed by the Parole Board, or a parole revocation judge.
Representative Wright, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, all this bill
does is allow parole revocation hearing officers, if and only if they have their concealed carry license, when they're traveling to and from these parole revocation hearings, it allows them to carry their weapon with them. As you can imagine, these people are going all throughout the state, different locations, different community correction offices, and sometimes they're traveling late at night, traveling by themselves, male and female.
And you can imagine it might be a little dangerous when they revoke somebody's parole.
This would just give them a little protection. More than happy to take any questions. Representative Lee, for what purpose? Question.
Speaker 64
16:41
You recognize. Most of these parole hearings, though, don't they? Are you saying they can carry their weapon into the parole hearing or where a parole hearing is going to take place? Correct.
Speaker 67
16:51
Aren't most of those parole hearings in areas that are already secured? No. I was unaware of that.
A lot of them are taking place all throughout the state, Representative Lee, some places with no security, no metal detectors, nothing.
Representative Wright has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not, the question before the House is passage of House Bill 1326. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? As everyone voted, cast the balance for 95 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present, you have passed the bill.
Speaker 13
17:34
Read House Bill 1360. House Bill 1360 by Representative Talley to update and amend the functions of the State Crime Laboratory. Representative
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
17:47
Talley, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Dear colleagues, I bring before you today House Bill 1360. The intent of this bill is to update and amend the functions of the state crime lab by adding language in the Arkansas Code to include among the lab's functions,
providing the equipment and personnel to conduct DNA analysis, DNA database administration, and computer forensic analysis. Other actions in this bill update the wording of the subsections to keep uniformity in the Senate's format. I'd appreciate a good vote. For what purpose?
Representative Bell. Representative Talley has left the well. Representative Talley has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House, passage of House Bill 1360.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? cast the balance of 86 a zero nays and two present you have passed the bill
Speaker 13
19:00
read house bill 1192 house bill 1192 by representative hammer to limit the power of eminent duane for property owners improvement districts and to declare an emergency representative hammer
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:10
you're recognized to explain the bill thank you mr speaker colleagues i come before you and ask that you'd give me a positive vote on this. If you were in committee, you were familiar with the situation. There's a gentleman named Seth Thomas down in Saline County, and basically what occurred to him was he was a private property owner, and the district that's under question exercised their rights under eminent domain and put a road right through his property. They paid him a small token fee, $1,500, and if you're familiar with Saline County land, that's not very much money. And all I'm asking for in this is that we would go in and limit the rights of those type improvement districts when it comes to exercising their authority over their private property owners who are next door to limit them from being able to take property away.
The utilities will continue to be able to be accessed so as to provide essential utilities, but this would stop somebody from having their property cut in half with the road because of somebody else wanting to exercise eminent domain over them. It does nothing with any utility companies or any of the other type of improvement districts around the state. It has nothing to do with the UN-21 agenda or any of those type of things. This is just taking care of a property owner who doesn't want to sell their land and let another private improvement district exercise the law over them.
And I'll be glad to answer any questions. Representative Nichols, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Will
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:36
bill? So this is the last time, and honestly, when I got ready to stand up before you the last time, I knew that the way the bill came before you was not right, and I felt it best to take it back through committee. As far as I'm concerned, you give me a due vote, I'm out of here. Thank you. Any other questions?
I'll just say this. May I close? I'll just say this. If you don't think this could happen to you, you're wrong. because it happened to a boy named Seth Thomas, who is a disabled veteran who fought in the Iraqi war, came home and had to fight a fight here on the home front. We won that war. He lost his. I want you to give him a victory today, if you would, with a good vote. Thank you. Representative
Hammer has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a passage of House Bill 1192.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. voting on the bill and the emergency clause has everyone voted has everyone voted cast the balance for 93 a's one day and zero present you have passed the bill read house bill 1270 represent hammer moose clincher all in favor say aye All right,
Speaker 8
21:56
I'll oppose. Say no. I have it. Clinchers, adopted. Read House Bill 1276.
Speaker 13
22:03
House Bill 1276 for Representative Douglas to allow an alternative method of disbursement of service charges for
emergency medical service areas. Representative Douglas, you're
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
22:20
recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is just a simple little bill. There's an emergency service district. That's what we normally call an ambulance district in layman's terms. Some counties have that they collect the money for. The fees are assessed on the tax statements. The county collects it.
And then the service districts have to bring their receipts in after they've already paid their bills. The county has to go through the receipts and disperse the funds. This would just simplify the paperwork process. It's emergency service districts' money. They spend it the way they want to. They have their own board of directors and their own auditing process. And it just eliminates the duplication of record keeping and paperwork.
I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Douglas has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House, the passage of House Bill
1276. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the balance for 92 yeas, 0 nays, and 0
Speaker 28
23:39
present. You have passed the bill. Mr. Clerk, pass over House Bill 1278, read House Bill 1383.
Speaker 13
23:50
House Bill 1383, Representative Vines, to amend the law concerning contract bidding to make the requirements uniform. Representative
Vines, you're recognized to explain the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
24:03
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Friends, I bring to you today House Bill 1383, and this bill is going to amend the law concerning contract bidding for counties. This bill came about as in the last couple years. My county and Garland County had a jail project similar to a lot of your counties, municipal buildings of some sort, county buildings of some sort or the other.
And we had to delay construction and development of that project while we got some guidance from the attorney general and private counsel on some different matters. So what this does is this bill amends the construction bidding law. It's a simple bill. It'll save your county's money. But basically what it does is says any work done in-house, either through the use of inmates or county employees, the purchase of commodities, meaning shingles, work product, that sort of thing. And also the procurement of professional services, whether it's an engineer, an architect, whatever, won't apply to that $20,000 threshold that's required before you start taking construction bidding.
It's a cleanup bill. The Association of Counties actually is part of their package. The County Judges Association has approved it. I'll be happy to answer any questions,
but that's essentially what the bill
Speaker 77
25:26
does. Representative Murdoch, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Representative Vines, so you're essentially taking materials out of that $20,000
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
25:33
requirement, any material? My understanding is that's already the practice anyway. We're just making that codified if you're using those in-house, those materials.
Speaker 77
25:42
Okay, and the State Contractors License Board, you met with them on this? Are they a part of this?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
25:49
We did. I believe, and without speaking for them, I don't know if they endorsed it, but they were okay with it.
Associate General Contractors. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate a favorable vote. Thank you. Representative Vines
has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Not the question before the House.
It's the passage of House Bill 1383. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has
everyone voted? As everyone voted, cast the ballots for the 89 yeas, 4 nays, and 1 present, you have passed the bill.
Speaker 13
26:37
Read House Bill 1401. House Bill 1401 by Representative Butch Wilkins to amend the meeting requirements for the liquefied petroleum gas board.
Senator Wilkins, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
26:59
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill is probably the shortest bill you're going to see in your career here. It actually changes one word from Shell to May. Liquid Petroleum Company said they didn't need to meet every quarter. It was costing them money, so they wanted to delete the word Shell and change it to May.
Representative Wilkins has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1401. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone
voted? Has everyone voted? Cast at the ballots for 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You
Speaker 13
27:53
have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1389. House Bill 1389, Representative Holcomb, concerning the minimum bid amount under contracts for state aid roads.
Representative Holcomb, you recognize to explain the
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
28:09
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is another request that I bring to you through the Association of Arkansas Counties. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the state aid program where if the county has a connecting road that connects to a state highway, the highway department shares in that process of redoing the road. It's bid out to contractors across the state, and at present there are four or five counties who have the capability of bidding on those projects.
It changes nothing about the process we're doing now as far as the bidding process. All it does is allow these counties that are capable of doing their own contracts to raise the bidding level, the bidding max, from $165,000 to $200,000. It's just merely a matter of the cost of materials and so forth. It doesn't change anything else. This is something that was agreed on by the county judges, by the contractors across the state, and the state highway department. I appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Representative Holcomb has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? Representative Bell, you're recognized to speak
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
29:24
against the bill. Members, I wasn't quick enough on the draw to get up and get a question. I apologize,
Judge Holcomb, but my concern with this bill really revolves around the fact that this is increasing the amount of work that's available to private contractors, and we have a taxpayer-supported entity, as in
the county, that's using the taxpayer's funds to go out and compete with those businesses directly, and I just generally don't support that as
a conservative. Representative Bell has spoken against the bill. Does anyone wish to speak for the bill? Against the bill, Representative Holcomb is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1389. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast the ballots for 56, 58 yeas, 22 nays, and 4 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill.
Representative Holcomb moves for the clincher. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Aye. The ayes have it. The clincher is adopted. Read House Bill
Speaker 13
30:34
1283. House Bill 1283, by Representatives House and all, to protect a servicemember's last vote, to allow a vote cast by absentee ballot before the death
Speaker 19
30:42
of a voter to be counted, and to repeal a portion of the absentee ballot law.
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
30:48
Representative House, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished members. I was contacted
about a situation by Mr. Stu Stover, a retired warrant officer, about a soldier who had cast an absentee ballot and then passed away, and then election day followed, and this ballot was not cast. It happened in another state. The bill was originally prepared to allow all people who cast absentee ballots, all voters who cast absentee ballots, to allow their vote to be counted if they died before Election Day.
It was contacted by the Secretary of State and was advised that there are some issues regarding fraud. but apparently no one has any disagreement about allowing the votes for a service member overseas. So if a service member does go to the trouble of voting absentee and passes away, his vote will be counted or her vote will be counted when it's received. I did have the privilege of voting absentee from overseas. The prospects of fraud in that eventuality are so remote as to be fantasy.
Speaker 90
32:01
I will take questions. Representative Holtis, for what purpose?
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
32:09
Question. You recognize. My uncle, he died about five years ago, and he's still voting. Does this guarantee
Speaker 94
32:15
that his vote will continue to count in the future? As long
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
32:20
as he can sign the ballot, yes, sir. Okay. Representative
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
32:26
Slinker, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Representative Holtis, now this is only for those service members who vote an absentee ballot yes ma'am okay so what about those persons who have early voted
and cast their ballot under the early voting procedures and then they're in a car wreck under the current law their votes would not count that there is no way to identify those early voters to know that their vote wouldn't count if they vote on the electronic
Speaker 101
33:00
voting system? Well, if they vote early, their vote counts the moment
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
33:05
they cast it on a daily basis. If they pass away before Election Day, there's no way to challenge that vote that I'm aware of.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
33:13
So it effectively does count. Okay. So this is just for absentee ballots cast? Yes, ma'am,
Speaker 14
33:25
from service members overseas. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Representative Armstrong, for
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
33:33
what purpose? Question. You reckon I have. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are you required to share your ID? Your absentee ballot is going to be mailed to an APO, Army Post Office. Federal law that governs the service members' voting rights just requires a written request from a service member,
and I believe it has to be verified by a superior officer. You have to list your address as being overseas and things like that. So as far as identification, I'm not aware of one that has to be shown. No copy of
Speaker 105
34:00
ID at all is required to be? I'm sorry, I can't hear you. No
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
34:05
copy of ID is required to be mailed in either? You're asking me something I don't know the answer to at this
Representative James McLean
Unverified
34:12
moment. Okay, thank you. Representative McLean, for what purpose? Question, Mr. Speaker. You're recognized. Representative Howes, if you have someone who is unable, a shut-in, someone in a nursing home, and they routinely use the absentee ballot, if they pass away prior to absentee voting, their vote will not count?
Chair
Unverified
34:29
It may be challenged. Okay, but typically
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
34:37
what's the standard practice? Well, I don't know if there's anything standard in 75
Speaker 110
34:42
counties of Arkansas about absentee ballots. Well, if somebody passes away after they've cast an absentee ballot, what happens to that ballot? Well, I can
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
34:57
tell you what the state statute says.
Now, what each of the 75 counties— What does the state statute say? The state statute says that if you cast an absentee ballot and you die before Election Day, your vote does not count. Now, how that is handled at each county, I couldn't speak to
Representative James McLean
Unverified
35:17
that. Okay, so essentially what we're going to do here is service personnel, their vote
Speaker 96
35:23
would be counted, but other voters, their votes would not. It does not address them, no, sir.
Okay. Thank you, Representative House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm closed. Representative House has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not, the question before the House, passage of House Bill 1283. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the balance for 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present.
You have passed the bill. Read House Bill
Speaker 13
36:09
1412. House Bill 1412, Representative Shepard et al., to amend Arkansas law concerning nonpartisan elections to establish certain offices as
Speaker 19
36:16
nonpartisan and to set uniform election dates for nonpartisan offices. Representative Shepard, you're recognized to explain
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
36:33
Members, House Bill 1412 would
make the Office of Prosecuting Attorney a nonpartisan office. Presently, as you're probably well aware, candidates for prosecuting attorney may run as partisan candidates. In other words, they can pay their filing fee to the state party. There's a partisan primary. And then ultimately, on the general election ballot, they are denoted as being Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Independent, as the case may be.
This bill would make prosecuting attorneys run on a nonpartisan basis. A couple of things to keep in mind. Presently, by way of Amendment 80 that was passed in 2001, judges are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Prior to 2001, judges were elected on a partisan basis. Amendment 80 provided for the nonpartisan election of judges. And I believe that this is a logical next step to include prosecuting attorneys in the category of nonpartisan candidates.
I think it's the right thing to do at this point in time. Judges are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Prosecuting attorneys should be as well. I think that there are a number of attorneys out there who are interested in seeing justice served who may not be politically active, yet our process as it exists today more or less encourages candidates, those who are interested in serving as prosecuting attorneys, to affiliate with the political party. I believe it's valuable to our system of criminal justice that our prosecutors not be attached to a political party.
I would point out one distinction. Judges are prohibited from active political activities. In other words, irrespective of how they're elected, they can't go out and support candidates or identify with the political party. Prosecutors, even under this bill, could still participate in partisan activities, but ultimately when they run for office and when they're on the ballot, they would not be identified with a political party.
I think now is the time to pass this legislation. This bill has been brought up several times over the past number of years. Presently, we have a viable two-party system, so it cuts both ways. Democrats will lose filing fees. Republicans will lose filing fees. I think now is the time to pass this legislation. A couple other things that this bill does is it moves the runoff election for judicial races to coincide with the runoff election for partisan
primaries as well. Presently, a candidate for judicial office runs at the same time as the May partisan primary. And if there's a runoff, then they must wait until November for the runoff election. That's five or six months later. This bill moves that runoff up to a point in time that corresponds with the partisan runoffs.
That would be the same case with prosecutors. Prosecutors would run in May if there's a runoff. It would take place in June at the same time as the partisan runoff elections. And then finally, this bill, given the fact that filing fees would be paid to the state of Arkansas, to the Secretary of State, there's presently a filing fee fund that is funded by filing fees for judicial races. Obviously, by making prosecutors nonpartisan candidates, there's going to be additional monies paid into that fund.
My research reveals that there's already a fairly significant balance in that fund, and that's why myself and my co-sponsors, we provide for the first $100,000 off of the prosecutor's filing fee to be diverted to the trial court assistance fund, which we all know has been an ongoing issue. It's maybe a drop in the bucket, but at least it's doing something. And so I think that this bill accomplishes a number of very worthy goals, and I would appreciate your favorable consideration.
Speaker 77
41:06
Representative Murdoch, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Does this
Speaker 90
41:12
affect school board elections in any kind of way? It does not. Thank
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
41:24
you. Representative Julian, for what purpose? Can you tell me what the difference was? For what purpose? Oh, question. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the setting of the judicial runoffs in November was to provide for the greatest number of people to be involved in that process
and that there is a very significant difference between the number of people that vote in the primary runoffs and in the general election by number. Did you all consider the impact of moving those elections back to the regular runoff date? We certainly, or I guess I can speak
Speaker 126
42:01
for myself, certainly considered that. I think there are a couple of reasons why
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
42:09
it makes sense to move the runoff up.
First off, judicial candidates can't speak on the issues. We all know that. Judicial candidates cannot say how they would rule on particular issues that might come before the court. So over that five- or six-month period in judicial races, there's largely not much being said. Secondly, judicial offices are the only office that I'm aware of that has such a lengthy waiting period, if you will, between the initial election and the runoff.
United States Senator, Governor, State Representative, State Senator, City Council, the list goes on and on and on, all have runoffs three weeks or four weeks after the partisan primary. And so while I've certainly believed that judicial offices are very important, I think these other offices are very important as well. And I think if we allow these offices to be elected in a runoff that takes place very soon after the election, I see no reason why we shouldn't do that with judicial offices.
The final point is until 2001, judicial candidates ran in that fashion. Prior to 2001, judicial candidates ran as Republicans and Democrats. And if you live in South Arkansas, in my neck of the woods, there was always a Democratic primary for circuit judge or prosecuting attorney. And if there was a runoff, it would take place those several weeks later because everybody ran as a Democrat. And so I think that all these issues, while I understand the concern of maybe turnout is not as great, that goes for all these other races.
And I think that it's important to bring consistency. And then the other thing that I think is important is that when you run for prosecutor or judge, the vast majority, obviously all that run for that office are attorneys. And probably the vast majority are practicing attorneys. This allows them ample time to wind up their law practice and also prepare for the office upon which they're about to enter. And then finally, the other, I think, practical consideration is that it's very difficult.
We all know is when we run for office and we face a partisan primary and then we know whether we're going to face a general election, We can plan for how we're going to raise money and campaign going forward. But in these offices, a judicial office, there are, first off, there are restrictions on how they can raise money, the time periods within which they can raise money and otherwise. And I think that that uncertainty about whether they're running a race in May or they're running one all the way to November lends itself to the idea that we should move those runoffs up to June.
But we certainly considered that. And one thing I might mention is J.D. Gingrich told me just a few moments ago the Judicial Council board had a conference call earlier today and that they have taken no position on this bill. Purpose of hammer, for what purpose?
Question, please. You recognize. In this bill, did it
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:27
extend the length of the term that the prosecutors could serve? Did it deal with the length of terms?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
45:34
No. No, we didn't deal with the length of the term. We're simply
providing for the nonpartisan election and dealing with when those runoffs would take place. Okay. Would it be – I
Speaker 131
45:45
would be curious to know with regards to just with the raising of money aspect that it
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:53
costs to run for a political office, if it's put into this status, do you feel that that may lower the quality of the candidates that run because it would be more difficult or would it adversely affect anybody because it would make it difficult to raise money without the label being attached to the name?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:11
I'm not sure I follow the question. I don't believe it would detract from the quality
of candidates. There's still going to be a competitive race, whether you're partisan or not. I think that in actuality it may broaden the field. And again, as I mentioned, I think there are attorneys out there that may be interested in serving as a prosecuting attorney, but they may not feel like they have the connections within the present structure of the two major political parties to generate the support to be successful.
So I think it's actually going to broaden the field, and I
certainly do not believe it would detract from the quality of candidates. If I felt that way, then
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
47:04
I wouldn't bring the bill. Very good. Thank you. REFERSON BROADWAY, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? QUESTION.
YOU RECOGNIZE. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE SHEPHERD, TO SPEAK A BIT TO REPRESENTATIVE JULIAN'S QUESTION OF YOU, YOU ALLUDED TO SOMETHING IN YOUR ANSWER THAT I THOUGHT WAS SPOT-ON HISTORICALLY, AND THAT IS THAT IN OUR STATE HISTORICALLY WE'VE ALMOST BEEN A ONE-PARTY STATE.
AND NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S TRUE NO LONGER. AND ISN'T IT TRUE NOW THAT MANY MORE DEFINITIVE ELECTIONS ARE HELD IN NOVEMBER November that would drive more voters to vote at that time, and thus the number of voters that would be voting for our judicial candidates would be diluted.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
47:37
Well, I think clearly there are more people voting in November because
that's when the races for president, governor, et cetera, take place. But I think also one thing we have to keep in mind is oftentimes when those races take place in November, judicial candidates are overlooked.
For example, in Eldorado, Union County, there was a race for one of our appellate courts in which the judicial race did not even make the early voting ballot, and it took about 10 days before somebody even noticed. And so I think that there is something to be said about the fact that when you have those races in November that our judicial races may somewhat be overlooked. The other thing is, because of the fact that judges can't speak to the issues, again, we have this long period of time where apparently they're supposed to be out campaigning, but they can't really deal with the issues.
I think it makes a lot more sense to move the runoff up so they get the benefit of all the whatever advertising or campaigning they've done in May, and that it makes a lot of sense that that can carry over for three or four more weeks, and that they get the benefit of that, and that we're going to have actually a much more informed electorate should we move the runoff up,
Speaker 90
48:47
which this bill does. Thank you. Representative Altus, for what purpose? Question. You're
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
48:52
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had quite a bit of discussion on this bill in the committee,
and it was a pretty close vote getting out of committee, and I don't remember all the details. Tell me, does this make the prosecutors run for the general election? May, just like the judges? That's correct. Okay, so the general election is in May, and then the primary, does this move the primary, I mean the runoff, does this move the runoff from November to June for the judges?
Speaker 137
49:29
If you're talking about prosecuting attorneys,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
49:32
we're not moving it. We're creating the runoff in June. If you're talking about judges, it does, in fact, move that runoff up to June so that prosecutors and judges, their runoff would take place at the same time as partisan runoffs take place. So
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
49:46
we're moving the runoff for judges from November to June? Yes. Okay. And then the general for both will be in May?
Speaker 94
49:54
If you want to – since there's no partisan primary, I don't know that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:00
we would refer to it as the general election.
It's the nonpartisan election. There's no general versus primary. There is an election, and then there will be a runoff. Okay.
Thank you. Representative Slinkard, for what purpose?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
50:20
Question. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Shepard, you talked about these filing fees for the nonpartisan candidates. Do you have any data about how many of those candidates now file by petition and do not pay a filing fee?
Is there anything out there that would assure that you're going to have enough money in the nonpartisan judiciary filing fund? The
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:49
information that was provided to me by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which, by the way, they favor this bill, is that presently there are 21 Democrats, five Republicans, one who petitioned, and one write-in candidate out of the 28 prosecutors. Now, we don't have information on how many of those had competitive races.
That's the makeup of prosecuting attorneys at this point in time. So there was at least one who
petitioned and successfully won their race. There's one who was a writing candidate who
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
51:26
successfully won their race. May I follow up, Mr. Speaker? Okay. Then what about district court judges and the circuit court judges that currently file by petition rather than paying a filing fee?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:38
I didn't look at the breakdown. Just
attorneys? I just looked at historically what we had with regard to prosecuting attorneys, and again, at this point, those filing fees on a partisan basis are paid to the state parties, so this is not necessarily information that's readily available through the Secretary of State's office.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
52:00
I think my concern, if I may, my concern was about whether or not there was going to be enough money if nonpartisan candidates decided to file by petition rather than paying a filing fee into that fund if there would be enough money coming in since it
had been previously being paid to the parties. I mean, I
Speaker 146
52:21
think that that's always – I mean, that's – I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:26
guess that's always a concern with any election, but I think that obviously the openness of having a process whereby people can petition would outweigh that concern.
And, again, my research with regard to what's presently the nonpartisan judicial filing fee fund shows that there is a fairly significant amount of money there right now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Question? You're recognized. Thank you. Representative
Speaker 146
52:56
Shepard, do you know how much extra cost to the state it would be to hold a runoff election in June if there was one? Because I believe this past election, if this law were in place, the only race that would have been a runoff is a judicial race or a prosecutor race.
There's probably some local races that might have also been involved as well. But have you thought about the extra cost of the state for doing something like this? I think that the
Speaker 126
53:27
conversations I've had have been that I don't think the cost is such of a great
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
53:33
concern because there are already a number of runoffs that take place, whether it's at the county, city, or local level. It's going to be very much determinative, you know, location by location.
So I don't have that information.
Speaker 14
53:47
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ficker. Representative Barnett,
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
53:51
for what purpose? Recognize. Question. I'll just do it from back here if that's okay, Representative Shepard. I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate it. Could this not be, I mean, why just prosecuting attorneys? Why don't we do state treasurer and the county state land commissioner and quorum court members and county judge? I mean, I've been around party politics a long time in my lifetime, and, you know, I was there on Amendment 80 and watched the Republican governor push that issue.
And, you know, I talk to circuit judges these days. They're not real happy with the Supreme Court. They think they've got too much power. And so why shouldn't this be referred to people? Amendment 80 was. I mean, why shouldn't it be referred to people? And, you know, I've always been taught that good government closest to the people is better government. So could you address some
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
54:51
of that, please? Let me address the second part first. I think we're actually bringing government closer to the people because with this bill, prosecuting attorneys would be elected on a nonpartisan basis.
No one has to show up at a party primary to have their vote cast for the prosecuting attorney candidate that they prefer. So we're actually taking the party out of that process, and to me that brings it more closely to the people. As to your first point, there probably are legitimate arguments as to why do we have all these offices that run on a partisan basis in the first place. My response would be that, and that's a fair point, but prosecuting attorneys enforce the law.
Enforce the law. And there should be no difference between a Republican prosecutor or a Democrat prosecutor or a Green Party prosecutor, independent prosecutor. They are to enforce the law. Now, they have some degree of prosecutorial discretion that I'm sure my colleague, Representative Steele, could speak to. But I think it's important to promote the integrity of our judicial system, the criminal justice system, and I think that that's why it's important that we remove the party label from our prosecuting attorneys.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
56:15
Can I follow up, please? Federal judges appointed by a Republican president, Democrat president, U.S. Supreme Court. A lot of times, 5-4 decisions. It's funny how that works and who they're appointed by on who's the president. I'm trying to understand, I mean, a party system, the way it works. I mean, there has to be filing fees for parties to operate.
It's been that way for a long time. And the two-party system in this state works pretty good. I just don't see that this thing is broken. And I'm not sure that it's a good decision that we do that at this time, if we'd like to refer to people. And I guess I should say, don't you agree? That's what
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:08
I should say. I guess I don't agree. I think that if we are honest with ourselves and we say, what's in the best interest of the people of Arkansas?
saw what's in the best interest of justice and developing confidence in the court and the criminal justice system, I think that clearly this bill moves us towards that goal. I mean, we have fine prosecutors in this state at this point, and whether this bill passes or fails, I'm sure we will continue to have fine prosecutors, but I believe this is an improvement. I believe that it's something that will be good for our system. And I believe that
it's something whose time has ultimately come. And I think that part of that is due, in fact, to the fact that we have a viable two-party system at this point, that it cuts both ways. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party both will lose filing fees under this bill. But I think at the end of the day, what is the right thing for the people of Arkansas?
And I I certainly believe this bill accomplishes that. But thank you for your questions.
Representative Meigs, for what purpose? That's your question.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
58:27
This should be an easy one. Right now, the state party set the filing fees for candidates. Should this go through and make it nonpartisan, money goes to the Secretary of
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
58:36
State, who decides the filing fees? The Secretary of State's office does. So they'll have complete discretion to set it to whatever they want? They will.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:42
Okay. I mean, it would obviously be anticipated that I think right now both parties' filing fee is $7,500. You know, I would anticipate that it would be along those lines, but it would be up to the Secretary of State's office.
Speaker 14
58:55
Thank you. Representative Edwards, for a purpose. Question?
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
59:01
You reckon I? Don't we already have some prosecutors in the state that are independent, or do
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
59:07
we not? The information I was given is that there, I guess there's one who petitioned and one who is a write-in, so there would be two who are not affiliated with one of the two major parties. Thank you, members. Representative
Shepard has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
59:29
Representative Meeks, I reckon I should speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hate to stand down here and speak against a bill from Mr. Shepard, but in a perfect world, our judges, our prosecutors would be completely independent. There would be no bias, but each one of us in this chamber knows the human nature is each one of us has a bias of some sort,
and I believe it's important for the voters of this state to know what that bias is and our prosecutors and all of us. A lot of our voters vote based upon the party we affiliate because that means we stand for a certain ideology. My prosecuting attorneys in my district have said he's opposed to this. I've got word from a judge in my county that says they're opposed to this, and so I would
respectfully ask you to oppose this measure. Thank you. Representative Steele, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Shepard is a tough act to follow. I think he did an excellent job presenting this bill. I don't have a whole lot to add, but I wanted to speak in favor of this bill because it is personal to me as a former prosecutor, and I think you made some excellent points. First of all, it's important to know that prosecuting attorney in this state is a very unique position. It's a very unique not only position within the state, but our prosecutors are unique to prosecutors in other states. We're not district attorneys.
We're not rendering opinions regularly. They are chiefly law enforcement officers, as Representative Shepard mentioned. That's their job. They usually come out of the ranks as a deputy prosecutor, usually supported mainly by law enforcement folks in their district. That's usually the people that make the decision on those issues. And unlike other states where the attorney general can usurp jurisdiction from a prosecutor, that's not the case here. And unlike other states where you have to be charged by a grand jury, that's not the case here. A prosecuting attorney, if elected, can issue an investigation.
He can issue subpoenas purely with his signature. He can charge you with a felony purely with his signature. It's a very powerful position, and it's not something that we need to be playing around with with partisanship. I think in today's political climate, it's even more important that we have nonpartisan prosecutors, folks that don't fight it out in a tough partisan campaign about where they stand on social issues and physical issues and then get elected and have all of this political power that should not be used in a partisan way. And not only that, but prosecutors are operating within the judiciary.
That's why they were a part of Amendment 80 before they themselves asked to be removed for various reasons. But ever since they were removed, it's created problems. And as Representative Shepard mentioned, the Prosecutor Coordinator's Office has conducted a survey. I believe the prosecutors were nearly unanimous, if not unanimous, in supporting this action. I can see we've got some questions I probably could do better
answering questions than I could pitching this bill. So I'll be happy to take any. Representative
Love, you were up first. We recognized for a question.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:02:42
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Steele, when you talked about the partisanship piece, I was wondering, since you are currently a Democrat, did the partisanship play a role in what decisions you made as a prosecutor?
Did partisanship play a role? Absolutely not. I think most prosecutors from where I'm from, as I mentioned, came as a deputy prosecutor. It's a very unnatural change. They weren't active in partisan politics at all in their district.
They were active prosecuting. And whenever their prosecutor came to retire, they had to make a somewhat unnatural move to start raising money in a partisan nature, start making partisan contacts and all that to get the resources they need to be elected prosecutor. I think that's usually less natural than natural. There may be some examples of prosecutors that came up through a party system, were active in their local parties, and then ran
for prosecutor. But I think that would be the exception to the
Speaker 164
1:03:42
rule. So now, if partisanship doesn't play a
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:03:46
role, then what is the intent of this bill?
I mean, because it would seem to me that if partisanship doesn't play a role, as you stated, then the intent of this bill, what is the real intent
of this bill? It's the same intent as Amendment 80, which is to get partisan politics out of our courts. It's the same intent for the same reason we have nonpartisan judges. And I think it's been extraordinarily effective having nonpartisan judges. I think this could only serve to benefit the court system. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 42
1:04:21
Representative Walker, for what purpose? Speak against the bill. Representative
Steele, you're still recognized. If I might, just because I, if I
might just finish my comments before I leave the well here. Representative Walker made an excellent point in committee about many of the parts of the state where you have kind of musical chairs between prosecutor and judges. I think, affectionately known in my part of the state, it's a steel trap, we used to call it. I'm a sixth-generation lawyer. My dad was a prosecutor. My grandfathers were both judges.
I'm familiar with how that works, and I think there's been some concern about that. Representative Walker raised some legitimate concern about that and said, you know, there's not a lot of diversity in people coming to run for these offices, and how would this affect that? Well, that, for the large part, is because those local groups controlled the local parties. It was a political position. Someone coming out as a deputy prosecutor or a city attorney or a county attorney that wanted to run for prosecutor would have a really hard time getting their foot in the door and trying to penetrate that party system. And I think this only serves to bring more people to the table.
I think you'll see more candidates running for these offices and candidates being judged based on what they've done as a deputy prosecutor or as a city attorney or whatever position they may have had rather than their political connections. So I appreciate a good vote for this bill. Representative Steele has
spoken for the bill. Does anyone speak against the bill? Representative Walker, you recognize I speak against the bill.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:06:01
Speaker, you recognize us. Members of
the legislature, let me first take the occasion to tell you how grateful I am to all of you on both sides of the chamber for your kind remarks and prayers and well wishes for my recovery for a very unexpected event with cancer. I am back prematurely in part because of my devotion to duty in this body
and also because I know you all are all here making sacrifices some just like me with respect to health but we all have an abiding concern about the welfare of the people in this great state and I thank you that you all have taken the time to be kind to me and I appreciate that I am, on this occasion, somewhat reluctant to speak against my two colleagues, both of whom are lawyers, Shepard and Steele, with respect to this particular bill.
I do so on the basis of what I consider to be considerable objectivity and some subjectivity, and I ask your indulgence with my few remarks. First of all, there is no evidence of a need for changing the present system. In other words, there is no clamor from within the state, there is no indication of a problem, and apparently the present system has been working well. Second of all, no other state approaches the election of prosecutors in this way.
So if we were to do this, we would be the first and only state, to my knowledge, which follows this particular approach. and my authority for this is Mr. Shepard and Mr. Steele, whom I asked the question in a committee meeting as to whether or not there were other states that had done this and they could provide me none. I understand that that's not absolute,
but I do not understand that this is something where a number of other states have seen fit to do this. Number third, number three, the suggestion is that this allows for more information about particular candidates to be shared in the political process during the election campaign. campaign. At this time, not very many people run for prosecuting attorney, and we know about them
very little. But what we do know is that they identify with the party one way or another, and we may or may not like their identification. And what bothers me about this, and this is and due respect to my Democratic members on both sides of the aisle is that I think that we are rushing to try to perhaps change this because of what we have seen happen when we stand up in elections. We have to run on merit, and it shouldn't be simply on the basis of party label.
So if some of our, quote, Democratic prosecutors are fearful that they will not be able to keep their positions, then so be it. but they have to run on merit and on the concept of good public
Speaker 170
1:09:50
service to all people, irrespective of party. The qualities of judicial
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:09:55
candidates is one of the reasons that is being presented for use of this. Well, in terms of judicial candidates, we know that some few people know what the policies and politics of candidates are.
But all people in the public don't know. And it's really important for us to know what the politics of prosecuting attorneys are because it is important to know whether they'll charge certain offenses, whether or not they will convene grand juries, whether or not they will be lax or severe in terms of what undertakings they make. It's important for us to be able to inquire of them just as we do other candidates such as ourselves for office.
Now, there is speculation by
my friends and brothers in the House that this will enhance the qualifications of people. There's pure speculation that the candidates who run for office are going to be better because we'll remove a party label from them. It may be that we have fewer, leading to exactly the kind of situation that Representative Steele mentioned,
where you have a family which runs the county, and then you have the deputy prosecutor, the prosecutor, and then we know prosecutors become judge, and then they become judge. So we don't need to have a legacy system that's perpetuated. And I'm not saying that there is much evidence of that, but we do know that there is some of that. Now, in terms of the kind of community we have, we are here basically to try to get people elected to office who want to be elected.
We're here to try to get people who are well qualified, who have the public interest at heart. And that can be a person on either side of the political ballot. It can be a Democrat or a Republican. But the main thing is the population, the people ought to have a choice, and it ought to be during times when other choices are being made. It certainly should not be at a separate time when you have two or three weeks to try to determine qualifications in a runoff election.
Too many changes are being made by this. There's no necessity for it. And in all due respect to the sponsors of it, where we had this debate in the Judiciary Committee where there was a closed vote, there's no compelling reason for it. And for this reason, I ask that you all vote against it. Representative
Gillum, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Thank you.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:12:49
Representative Walker, bear with me. I'm going to try to articulate this question as best I can. but you mentioned something a second ago about the value and knowing the political beliefs
and the partisan beliefs of these candidates to know how they're going to perform their job. Shouldn't they enforce the law as it is just based on the – going back to something I think Representative Shepard mentioned in his presentation, but in their main function to actually enforce the laws as is and not to circumvent them because they happen to disagree with the particular law because of their political ideology? Well, I'm
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:13:29
glad, Representative Gilliam, that you asked that question.
A prosecutor has unfettered discretion. A prosecutor cannot be sued for the exercise or lack of exercise of that discretion. So a prosecutor may look the other way at certain kinds of crimes, or he may or she may look the other way when friends or other persons whom they have favor with are involved in the process. Or they may choose to investigate or not to investigate. Those are prosecutorial decisions that we need to be able to inquire into.
I mean, certainly everybody, each prosecutor should be fair, but not all prosecutors approach their jobs in the same way. And no two people are going to approach their jobs in the same way, just as you and I don't. But, I mean, we understand that. But the expectancy is that the cause of justice will be advanced and that fairness, non-discrimination, and justice will be the outcome. But I don't see that this moves us in that direction any more than the present system.
If it were to move us in that direction, some other state would already have done it. And there's no evidence here. There's no evidence here that what is being proposed is going to change anything to the benefit of our people, only to
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:14:57
the detriment. May I ask a follow-up? Sure. Okay, you just, I think, hit on this. You're asserting, though, that this will actually take us to the detriment. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand that? Well, here's
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:15:10
the problem. What you're trying to do is get the prosecutors in the position as the judges.
And in the judge situation, judges are not to be able to let you know how they feel about issues because it may impinge upon their future rulings of the appearance of fairness as they administer the judicial code. In this situation, we may be able to raise questions of prosecutors during the process, but we may not make inferences or assumptions based upon their past activities. We cannot get into what they are really thinking if we're going to treat them like we treat judges.
The idea for us is to know as much as possible about our potentially elected officials, And we need to be able to inquire
of them as to how they will handle a particular situation. One final question,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:16:02
Mr. Speaker. Okay, but now my understanding of this particular bill is it does not place the same restrictions on the prosecutors that it does the judges. They're still able to engage in partisan activities and stuff. So isn't the burden on the voter to ask the right questions and to engage in the process?
I mean, is that? Am I misunderstanding, but the way I understood it was that this wasn't taking the voters right away from them to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:16:34
ask questions of the candidate. Is that correct? I think that what it is, it's a devious, surreptitious way of trying to deceive voters. I mean, clearly, a person can run as a Republican or a Democrat without saying he is or she is one of those.
Now, by being able to do it, that means that, well, you don't have to identify with the Republican Party. You don't have to identify with the Democratic Party. So we'll just assume that you are not going to be partisan. I think that when people identify with parties and they are running and associated with the parties during the election and get their funding from the party during the election, they are not to deny their support base. Thank you.
Representative Leonard, from what purpose? Question. Representative Walker has spoken against the bill. Does anyone wish to speak for
the bill? against the bill. Representative Shepard, you
Chair
Unverified
1:17:43
recognize close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few points.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:17:49
My colleague, Representative Meeks, came to the well and said that basically we
all have biases. That's my point exactly,
that when we vote for a Republican or a Democrat, we have this view of what a Republican or a Democrat is going to be. That's not helpful when it comes to voting for a prosecuting attorney. What's the difference between a Republican prosecutor and a Democrat prosecutor? Can somebody tell me? Does one enforce the law and the other not? That's why partisan labels are not helpful when it comes to the election of prosecuting attorneys.
There was a question about partisanship, a question asked of Representative Steele whether partisanship played a role in any of his decision-making. If partisanship doesn't play a role at any point, then everybody should be for this bill. Representative Walker alluded to, I think he referred to this as a devious effort. I'm not trying to be devious, I'm just trying to pass good legislation here.
And it's interesting that Representative Walker, who is – I have perhaps the most respect for Representative Walker as any of my colleagues in the House. And he tells us that the system is fine. There is no other member of the House who has stood up more against the system where it has been wrong than Representative Walker. And I suggest that this is a move in the right direction. I don't think that partisan labels are helpful when it comes to races for prosecuting attorney.
There should be no difference between a Republican and a Democrat. I believe that this moves us in the right direction. It opens up the process to those who are not politically active. And as to Representative Walker, his question of us in committee was whether we're aware of other states that do this. I did not research that issue. I don't know. Representative Steele has told me that there are other states that provide for selection without regard to political party. I appreciate the good discussion here.
I appreciate the questions, and I would just ask that you consider this bill and think about what is truly in the best interest of Arkansans, what is truly in the best interest of the administration of justice. Thank you. The question before the House is the
passage of House Bill 1412. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballots for 40 a's, 15 a's, and 0 present. The bill has failed. So, members, I'd like to reintroduce,
Representative, what's your motion? Moves for the clincher, prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 36
1:21:11
As everyone voted, cast the balance of 24 and 25 yays, 55
nays, and 0 present, the clincher fails. I would like to reintroduce the Northwest Arkansas Community College students and trustees, guests from the Northwest Arkansas delegation that have joined us. Mr. Baird, you're recognized.
Representative John Burris
Unverified
1:21:49
After the announcements, reading of the bills, placing the calendars on the desk, amending members on bills with their own amendments, members withdrawing their own bills, finalizing resolutions, reading communications, and any remaining committee reports, a move we adjourn until 1.30 tomorrow. Proper motion, not debatable.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Motion carries. Are there any announcements?
Representative Cozart, you're recognized for an announcement. Mr. Speaker, the Arkansas State Dental Hygienist Association has a gift for you back in the back room if you will pick it up.
And we're glad to see them here today. Thank you. Representative Gene, you're recognized for an announcement.
Mr. Speaker, joint budget claims will meet whenever the Senate adjourns in Big Mac B this afternoon. Representative McClain, you're recognized for an
announcement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Education will meet tomorrow, 10 o'clock, room 138. Representative Burris, you're recognized for an announcement. Public health, tomorrow at 10 a.m., we do have a
Speaker 71
1:22:46
couple bills that will be running. Representative Burris, you're recognized for an announcement.
Representative John Burris
Unverified
1:22:52
Joint budget committee will meet tomorrow morning, 9 a.m., Big Mac
Chair
Unverified
1:22:58
A. Any other announcements? Representative Barnett, you're recognized. House Transportation, 10 o'clock, Big Mac B, tomorrow morning. Any other announcements? Read the bills, Mr.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
1:23:11
Clerk. House Bill 1462. Without objection, read the bill again. House Bill 1462. Get agencies. House Bill 1463. Without objection, read the bill again.
House Bill 1463. Get agencies. House bill 1464. Without objection read the bill again. House bill 1464. Revenue and tax. House bill 1465. Rejection read the bill again. House bill 1475. Be county and local. House bill 1465. House bill 1466. Without objection read it again. House bill 1466. State agencies. House bill 1467 Adjection, read it again
House bill 1467 State agencies House bill 1468 Adjection, read the bill again House bill 1468 Public health House bill 1469 Adjection, read it again House bill 1469 Adjection House bill 1470 1470. Without objection, read the bill again. House bill 1470. Judiciary. House bill 1471. Without objection, read it again. House bill 1471. Calendar. House bill 1472. Without objection, read it again. House bill 1472. Joint budget.
House Bill 1473 Objection, read it again House Bill 1473 Public Health House Bill 1474 Objection, read it again
Speaker 16
1:24:52
House Bill 1474 Judiciary The desk will remain open for reading of the bills
Chair
Unverified
1:24:59
until 4 p.m. today and upon completion of the items and adjourned resolution the House
Speaker 28
1:25:04
will be adjourned until 1.30 p.m. tomorrow
Speaker 186
1:25:11
To learn more at www.arkansahouse.org and to get involved, it's your house. Welcome.
Agenda
Prayer & Pledge
HR1017
HB1265
HB1399
HB1307
HB1388
HB1326
HB1360
HB1192
HB1276
HB1383
HB1401
HB1389
HB1283
HB1412
Announcements
Reading of the Bills
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 3
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 19
Representative Davy Carter Chair
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 28
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
Speaker 42
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 52
Representative Harold Copenhaver
Unverified
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 67
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 8
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 77
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Speaker 90
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 94
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 101
Speaker 14
Speaker 105
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 96
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 131
Speaker 137
Speaker 146
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 164
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 170
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Representative Bruce Cozart Chair
Unverified
Representative Lane Jean Chair
Unverified
Speaker 16
Speaker 186