House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
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
Could you join us at the end of the table? You're recognized to run 1389. Well, thank you,
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
0:10
Madam Chair, members of the committee. This is a pretty simple bill also, House Bill 1389. It's actually a cooperative effort of the Association of Art of Salt County, the county judges, the approval of the asphalt contractors. We also have the blessings of the highway, State Highway Department. And I'm sure most of you are familiar with the State Highway, State Aid Program. Which the counties in the state have a cooperative effort?
doesn't change anything other than that the bid cap itself the the The project itself still has to be approved by the state highway Basically, it's where county roads connect states to state highways. It's a joint venture where most of the tabs picked up by the state It's a this is it has no no financial impact on the state at all it just raised a bid cap and only it only affects actually about four or five counties who are capable of doing these own projects herself and you may have
heard the presentation of from Scott Bennett and from the highway department about the cost of materials and that's basically what we're what we're addressing here the counties the cap presently is a hundred sixty five thousand they're actually having to submit two bids to be able to do a project because of the cost of materials so once again it's it's nice it'd be a savings a lot less trouble for the counties and no impact on the state at all so we're asking you to move it from we were actually asking for 250,000 but
this is agree what we agreed upon with a asphalt contractors and so we would
West Fowler
Unverified
1:55
have a couple questions Representative Nichols yes thank you madam chairman representative Holcomb there is a Arkansas constitutional provision that applies to counties dealing with public works I believe that requires a bid to be awarded the lowest
responsible bidder and I don't recall seeing anything about the limits on that have you got an opinion on whether or not not only your amendment but this particular act is is in compliance with Arkansas's Arkansas Constitution well Madam Chair I have a West Fowler here
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
2:29
from the Associates of Arkansas counties if you don't mind I'd ask him to come and address that that'll be fine just recognize yourself at the end of the
Speaker 14
2:45
and I'm with the Association of Arkansas counties representative Nichols what this bill actually does is counties that want to bid on their own projects through the state aid program it raises the limit from 165 to 200,000 they still have to bid just like any of the contractors anyone else has nothing to do I mean to answer your question, and this will meet every bit of constitutional muster. It's still low-bid
construction. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Speaker 5
3:22
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Representative
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
3:25
Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chair. So beforehand, after it got over that $165,000, it had to go to the state. Is
Speaker 14
3:33
that, I mean, I know. No. All of these projects are bid through the highway program through the state a division of the state highway program all of them are engineered by the state highway program counties were not
eligible to bid on projects over a hundred and sixty five thousand dollars even for their own roads and all this does because of the cost of materials is raise that cap and as an agreed to bill between the counties and the associated general contractors any other questions from committee please excuse me representative Overby madam chair do
Speaker 5
4:22
there any comments from the public for against this bill represent over be I'll recognize you for
Speaker 20
4:33
aye all those opposed congratulations representative Holcomb thank you madam chair committee members appreciate it representative house
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
4:50
you're recognized for house bill 1283 good morning madam chair ladies and
gentlemen this bill is as you can see fairly simple it when a soldier is our service member army Navy Air Force Marine Corps Coast Guard is overseas performed military duty if they vote absentee under current law if they pass away killed in action died before Election Day their vote would not be a legal vote this changes that if they vote send their vote in it will be counted as long as it arrives at the proper time changes law any questions
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
5:29
does the committee have any questions representative house I completely agree with what you're doing here I I really feel like that that order anybody that voted absentee should be that vote should be counted. Have you considered just making that a general bill on that? Because that sounds, it just, if you take a police officer or someone else that's killed in the
line of duty and they have voted absentee, then that vote was
legal when they voted, and I think the vote should be counted regardless. But I do agree with what you're
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
6:13
doing completely. Yes, sir, I did. The first draft of the bill would have covered everyone. I was advised by the Secretary of State and a couple of county clerks. They were worried about fraud from local folks. The distinction that I can make for soldiers as opposed to everybody else that finds themselves in that situation is this. The service member, I keep saying soldier out of
habit, the service member finds himself or herself overseas not of her own choice. Everybody else is anywhere in the world at their own choice I think it will probably be okay but I turned I toned toned my bill down just to address the service members and will I'm interested in covering everybody else back in the day before early voting you voted it counted right then but we got to recognize that when
we talk about absentee ballots we start talking about some fraud issues across our state and I think we all recognize that those were there and I don't want to do something that would engender
Speaker 8
7:22
more opportunity to do that for anyone representative Nichols pardon me
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
7:27
representative Hutchison was first thank you madam chair do you think do you think that they wasn't getting counted I I mean, I'm with you on this, too, 100%.
I know from experience that, you know, Election Day, a lot of the service folks wasn't even in. That's true. They have to come in within 10 days,
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
7:51
I believe, if I remember my election law correctly from the date of Election Day. Yes, sir, that's right.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
7:57
Do you think, though, that a lot of absentee voters that died, passed away, you
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
8:02
don't think their votes was counted? We
do know of some instances in other states where it has happened.
The idea is to head off the problem before it occurs here. I'll buy that. I'll buy it. I appreciate that. And having personal experience with trying to vote absentee from a while a ways from here, I know it is a real challenge to get your vote in on time when you consider that the males are subject to being disrupted from all sorts
of situations as are the lives of our service members and especially when it's a close vote huh yeah one or two votes will settle an election in a local local race your
will thank you thank you representative
Speaker 8
8:46
have representative Hickerson okay representative Nichols yes this
West Fowler
Unverified
8:52
what if you're a service member and your your home and early voting started and you early voted and then you get to the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
9:02
theater and you're killed will this bill cover that no sir early voting
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
9:08
my understanding is when you early vote the vote counts the moment you vote early
this would only cover absentee ballots okay so as far as
Speaker 16
9:21
the concern that vice chair Wilkins had about other folks their votes would count if they had early voted yes sir okay all right thank you yes sir thank you madam chair are there any of the questions from committee
Speaker 5
9:36
is there anyone from the public that would like to speak for against this bill
Speaker 11
9:48
motion do pass all those in favor aye all those opposed nay that was a tepid aye guys all those in favor I appreciate that congratulations representative house thank you madam chairman may I be excused I appreciate you asking that yes you may representative link I'm assuming you're here to say you're bringing your bill
off deferred okay we'll we'll hear it sometime next week then if that's all right with you also committee a little housekeeping on Wednesday we it's been requested that accelerate Arkansas come and present there will be presenting for first 15 minutes of the meeting but there's also been a request for special order for I Senate bill to Senator King's bill on voter ID so without
objection we're going to set that for special order for Wednesday after the
presentation represent Shepard you're recognized to present House bill 1412 Thank you. May I ask
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
11:11
Representative Steele and Bob McMahon with
the Prosecutors Association to join me here at the table? That would be fine.
Thank you. members of the committee House bill 1412 is a bill filed by myself along with several other colleagues including representative steel that would cause the office of prosecuting attorney to be a nonpartisan office the committee will recall several years ago by way of amendment 80 judicial offices were made to be nonpartisan this bill simply would treat prosecutors in the same manner
There are a number of reasons why this bill is a good bill, but just to touch on a couple. One, as I mentioned, judges are nonpartisan, and it would be my contention that similarly prosecutors likewise should be elected in a nonpartisan fashion. Ultimately, prosecutors have the charge to enforce the laws. They, in essence, are not policymakers where partisan identification might be helpful. There should really be no difference between a Republican prosecutor versus a Democrat prosecutor versus a Green Party prosecutor.
Secondly, in the interest of electing the most qualified prosecutors, there are many attorneys who are not necessarily politically active or not necessarily tied to any particular political party, but yet have a strong interest in seeing justice served. And I think that in many ways those are the people that we would like to give the opportunity to run for such an office. But under the current system, they are very much compelled to declare one way or the other with regard to a political party.
And then third, I think now is the time. This bill has been brought on a couple of different occasions. I think now with the existence of a viable two-party system in the state of Arkansas, that now is the proper time to make these offices nonpartisan. It cuts both ways. There are Republican prosecutors, there are Democrat prosecutors. Both parties in the past can continue to receive filing fees from prosecuting attorneys. This bill would make prosecutors nonpartisan.
The filing fees would be paid to the state. You can see there are provisions in there. that it would go into the same fund that presently receives judicial filing fees there is based on my research there's already I would say a significant amount of money in that fund and so therefore we have itemized that a portion of the funds off the prosecutor filing fees would go towards the trial court assistance fund which we all know is a as an ongoing issue that we are trying to address and then the other thing that this bill with regard to some
cleanup does is it moves the runoff for both judicial and and prosecuting attorney elections from the general election in November to I believe June or three weeks after the the primary election and I think that this is a very appropriate move because obviously those running for prosecutor or judge generally are practicing attorneys this gives them the ability to know whether they're going to be moving on to another office gives them time to wrap up their
law practice and then also it gives them time to prepare for the job that they're about to enter we all know as as state representatives that it's from November to January is a very short period of time for an office that we hold which is part-time let alone for a judge or prosecutor who's moving into a a full-time office so that's another aspect of this bill I think it provides some cleanup language and with
that I would be glad to turn it over represent
it still for any additional comments he might
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
15:33
have thank you committee and thank you representative Shepard I think representative Shepard covered most of the things that I would cover I just wanted to add a couple of little things first of all the argument always is well look, we're going to do prosecutors, why not sheriffs, why not everybody else? And I think there's some good reasons for that. Prosecutors initially were a part of Amendment 80 when it was first drafted. They are the ones that want it out of Amendment 80 for a variety of reasons.
In addition to that, the filing fees of $7,500 generally is a strong incentive for the parties to not want prosecutors to be nonpartisan. So for those reasons, they ended up getting out of Amendment 80. But the reason they were in there to begin with is because prosecutor is the only office outside of a judge that actually does act within the judiciary in terms of those three branches of government. They are often acting in the executive, and they're often acting in the judiciary. So there is no other office like that. Sheriff certainly is not that way. They're always in the executive.
Any other office I can think of outside of judges, prosecutors is the only one. So that's the reason that prosecutors were initially in Amendment 80. It's the reason that prosecutors, after being amended out of Amendment 80 or in the final draft, have been trying to get back in ever since. And I think this bill has been filed, by the way, by Republicans. It's been filed by Democrats. It's not a partisan issue. In fact, the whole point of it is that it's a nonpartisan issue. So I hope with that we've got Bob McMahon from the prosecutor's office.
I think Representative Shepard introduced him earlier, and he can answer any questions about where the prosecutors in general stand on this and maybe in other technical questions you all have. Thank
Speaker 63
17:13
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm Bob McMahon. I'm the prosecutor coordinator representing the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. And as we do on
Speaker 64
17:19
all legislation, we survey and poll the prosecutors, and they have authorized me to speak in favor of this bill. So as an association, we are
Speaker 11
17:29
in favor of the bill. Thank you very much. I did call my prosecutor as well who is it the opposing party at not opposing
party he's a Democrat and he told me the same thing questions from the committee representative Nichols I haven't
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:48
been up to load up the entire bill to read it But some of your comments,
West Fowler
Unverified
17:55
Mr. Shepard dealt with runoff elections. Now, judges, if they are in a runoff, the runoff is held in November.
Is that correct? That's correct. Are you changing that at all? Yes. Well, that gives me a problem because I heard Governor Beebe say this at the Bar Association meeting here this past year, year before last when some people were wondering why they had to wait so long for the runoff. And he took ownership of that issue when he was a state senator because runoffs historically
have such a low turnout that you would have such a small minority possibly determining who an Arkansas Supreme Court judge might be. And so the policy behind having the runoff for judicial elections in November was to have as many folks as possible available to vote. So I don't necessarily object to prosecutors being
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
19:06
nonpartisan, but I do object I think
to moving it to three weeks after the Democratic or Republican
West Fowler
Unverified
19:15
primary to have runoffs not only in these judicial and prosecutor races. I think those positions are so important to our administration of justice that I'd hate to see a small minority of voters in a runoff choose our Supreme Court justice
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:52
I'm saying well I certainly respect that point and agree that is important that we have significant voter turnout but what I would say in response is that for all other offices we have run-offs is is United States senator any less significant than a circuit judge or Supreme Court justice is a state representative race any less significant than a judicial race I mean I think all
these races are significant I think that we should be promoting turnout in all these races but I think it's very difficult as I alluded to particularly with judicial races and with the prosecuting attorneys race I think it's important to allow those people who we are electing to office ample time to prepare for the office that they're about to enter and then conversely it's very difficult when they when you run a race for judge or prosecutor you're not
sure if you're running a race that's going to be concluded
in May or November and additionally judicial races judge judicial candidates can't speak on the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
21:04
issues anyway don't tell that to judge Griffin but but
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
21:08
it's a it's a it's a it's a fair point I just believe that that the the
interest of concluding the race within a short time period as we do virtually every other race I think that
that that that there's certainly some interest in that and that's why we put
West Fowler
Unverified
21:30
that in there as you know I teach and I've have started asking my students to name the last judge they voted for and out of
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
21:40
40 or 50 students are there may be two they can name a judge they voted for or that they remember being on the ballot not that they voted for it to remember being on the ballot so I do
think there is a distinction here as far as as runoffs go and I think that we need to keep that aspect of it in the law but I don't have a problem with them becoming nonpartisan I'm happy to hear you
Speaker 5
22:13
say that representative Nichols as we sat next to each other two years ago on
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
22:22
this committee representative Wilkins shepard my question is really along the same lines if I understand this right this will be
on it will be the judges will still be on the May primary ballot as nonpartisan that's correct That's correct. And your runoff will be in June? Will it be the same if it's required? I really haven't understood that
yet. I believe it corresponds. I believe
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:49
the language, it's the second Tuesday in June preceding the general election. I believe that that corresponds with partisan runoffs. So they would all be held on the same day. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 82
23:03
Thank you. Representative Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have several questions if I may
Speaker 84
23:23
you know the number of other states who have this procedure others other states I'm not sure so there is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:29
no experience with with this proposition that you know of anywhere else I don't I don't know
secondly isn't it historically correct that prosecutors
are party related for instance that the federal level the prosecutors are appointed but they are party appointed well they're appointed by their they
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
23:57
are nominated with I guess if you're talking
about US Attorney US attorneys are nominated by the president confirmed by the Senate yeah and and so I guess if you consider that to be party
related then federal judicial offices are party related as well I understand but
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:15
there is at least the expectation that the party that wins
the election will have the power to make the appointment I think that there's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:26
the expectation that the president who is elected will have the ability to make an appointment of US attorneys and so that that would be the expectation and I guess by extension if
it may be that it's the party as well well we do know
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:43
that prosecutorial appointments are generally on recommendation of local party representatives
isn't that correct generally throughout the United States I guess at the federal level
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:56
generally the United States senator from the party the president's party generally makes some recommendations yes now what would you do
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:06
with respect to the Attorney
General would you have that position made nonpartisan no
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
25:14
but I think the Attorney General has more policy-making
authority then your district in your prosecuting attorneys in the various judicial districts well I mean
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:26
I respectfully disagree but all all prosecutors would you not agree are political animals and they make decisions with absolute discretion which is not subject to any review other than the review of the public at a regularly appointed time when they when they submitted for reelection and that
the case law is very clear that if you don't like the fact that a prosecutor didn't did do something your only recourse is to turn him or her out and you can't even sue them because of prosecutorial So why do you want to do this without there being some compelling reason for it other than that it just looks good or may appear to be more convenient to somebody? I think you just made the case
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:16
for the bill, Representative Walker. We want prosecutors judged on the merits of their conduct and their performance and their past record, not on the basis of a party label, not on the conduct of other office holders at the federal or state level.
We all know that, again, what is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican when it comes to the prosecuting attorney's office? Those labels are not helpful when it comes to a prosecuting attorney's race. To me, it only serves to cloud the ability of the public to make a fair decision when it comes to the merits of who should be the prosecutor. One final question.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:57
I understand that there are several states that have a single ballot which allows for a person's party designation to be there
and for a person who is not party designated to also be on the same ballot. And the person who gets the most votes, whether party affiliated or not, becomes the winner. So it's the majority vote consideration. What's your objection to that? And I guess you're referring to, I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
27:30
think it's the blanket primary where Republicans, Democrats, independents are all on one ballot. Yes, and you can run
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:36
as a Republican if you choose. You can run as a Green Party person. You can run as a neutral, or you can run as one of these purportedly most qualified people
who doesn't want to otherwise tarnish him or herself with the dirtiness of politics. Well,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
27:56
believe Louisiana has that type of system. That would be much more far-reaching than what this bill proposes to do. We're just talking about one office. I think that changing to a blanket primary would be something that you would have to do throughout down the ballot in all offices. But who knows? Maybe that's something that should be addressed.
I think that this bill is a good bill. I think it serves to remove politics or the political parties from the selection of prosecuting attorneys, and I submit to the committee that that's a good
Speaker 10
28:37
thing. We disagree on this one. Thank you. Representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
28:42
Hickerson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Shepard, my question is not about the main part of the bill and what it does.
It's about the filing fees and the funding of the trial court administrative assistant fund Would you talk a little bit about that fund? I understand that last year that that were short And they they were trying to get some additional funding for that and is this where we're going to Be able to to do this how and another question is how much would filing fees just an estimate how much would this be in filing fees and I
noticed a hundred thousand dollars goes to that fund so just be open
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:30
and transparent about that sure thank you representative Hickerson presently it's my understanding that both parties set the filing fee at $7,500 and so if this bill would give the discretion to the Secretary of State's office if assuming the Secretary of State set the filing fee at $7,500. There's 25 prosecutors. And so you're looking at, right, several candidates in each race, but at a bare minimum, assuming no one
filed by petition, which this still would allow, you're looking at, you know, close to $200,000 just based on 25 positions. And as Representative Steele has pointed out to me, you're going to you potentially have multiple multiple candidates now with regard to the trial court assistance fund I understand that there may be other bills that have been that are being filed to hopefully address that shortfall the reason that represent still in myself included this provision and designated a certain a
small small amount of money to be moved over I mean to to this fund is in In looking at the information on the nonpartisan filing for nonpartisan judicial filing fee fund, which this bill would rename the nonpartisan filing fee fund and these fees would go into, it appears that that fund has carried a balance of somewhere between a half million and a million dollars at any given time, depending on where we are in the election cycle. It's our belief that we would not be adding too much of a substantial burden on the Secretary of State's office
and we wanted to at least move a portion of those fees over towards the trial court assistance fund it's it may be kind of a drop in the bucket but at least it's something as opposed to just continuing to build up a fund
that seems to be well funded at this point in
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
31:25
time thank you just one one more quick question and how much I mean would
that help that so that's about half you're talking about
designating about half of that for this for this trial court
Speaker 73
31:38
assistance funds it may be half it's I would be less than half and
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
31:44
will this take care of their storage in that fund how much are they spending on these representatives still
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:53
may know what the what the
shortage what the shortage is in the trial court assistance fund I don't think this is this is I don't believe would be a significant number but you know it would be my belief that any money that we could put over into that fund potentially obviously it helps
that fund and then it may free up additional money to be used elsewhere in the administrative administration
Speaker 85
32:26
of justice fund thank you thank you madam chair represent vaultus thank you madam chair I have
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
32:32
two quick questions purely mechanical on the first page line 27 through 29 and also 32 through 34 and second page 1 through 3
it talks about all the different nonpartisan candidates aren't these nonpartisan offices now justice of the Supreme Court Court of Appeals circuit judge district judge yes wire why do we need to create three new subdivisions and underline all this stuff then well I have to look back
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
33:04
at this at the at 7 1 101 I think we
were just creating definitions to say it if my memory serves
me correct and in the statutes as they exist now there is the distinction between judicial office and prosecuting attorney. And what this bill does in these sections is basically creates these defined terms, nonpartisan candidate, nonpartisan election, nonpartisan office. And so it's merely for
the ease of description throughout the code to have defined terms. I don't recall the other specific provisions,
but it's my recollection that that was something that was necessary in order to accurately define what we're talking about.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
33:53
It looks to me like there should be parts of 71-101 that would be struck if we're adding all this new language,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:10
don't you think? Well, I would just have to go back and look. I think
that if we right well we actually I think over on 710 101 we deleted nonpartisan
judicial office the way the code is broken down there were there were the to find terms up front then you my recollection is you had certain sections that dealt with judicial offices and then you had certain sections that dealt with prosecuting attorneys and so while we're not deleting a term from 7 1 1 0 1 we are deleting a term from 7 10 1 0 1 and that's where the exchange the the trade-off is I think that you're looking for
Speaker 5
35:00
representative Hutchison representative Dotson madam chair
Speaker 118
35:08
just a couple quick questions here with regards currently judicial candidates have some restrictions as far as fundraising can't discuss personal views on politics and that sort of thing for the prosecuting attorney with this how would this change their ability to do fundraising the disclosure of that fundraising and their personal discussion views on politics this or any other thing this would not
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
35:33
change that my understanding is the judicial was the judicial cannons on ethics
that is actually what prohibits judges from talking about issues that may likely come before the court prosecuting attorneys would not be subject to those judicial cannons prosecuting attorneys as all lawyers are subject to the model rules of professional conduct which don't prohibit the discussion of those issues and in fact this bill would do nothing
to preclude a prosecuting attorney or candidate from being involved politically anywhere else it's just that on the ballot they would not run they would not file and they would not run as formally under one political party or another and representative still
may have something to add to that
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
36:25
if I just add something as he mentioned that nowhere in the statutes is that all clarified on judicial candidates and so it wouldn't be here either but prosecutors are subject to unique rules of ethics and unique unique rules on what they could
say and can't say and things like that so judges and prosecutors are governed separately prosecutors are not governed just as a lawyer in general there are there are rules that are specifically apply to prosecutors those would remain in effect thank you representative Miller thank
you madam chair motion at the proper time thank you representative
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
37:09
couple of questions represent Shepard I know you and I discussed a little bit earlier that there were some concerns relative to nonpartisan elections and filing fees with regard to how that interfaces with amendment 29 have have you all you
Speaker 124
37:27
feel fairly comfortable that you've resolved those questions with regard
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
37:33
to this bill can you refresh my memory amendment 29 basically doesn't provide for the filing fee process for a nonpartisan candidate it only provides
for getting on the ballot via petition and that was I know I'd run into this a little bit in a project that I'm working on dealing with
sheriff's races and was just curious if that had been resolved or if someone maybe from Secretary of State's office or someone anybody would care to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:10
comment on on that concern I'm not sure I've been this has
represented still reminded me or maybe Bob reminded
me that prosecutors were addressed in amendment 80 they are referenced in amendment 80 albeit they're not designated as nonpartisan we are we have basically adopted the filing fee process that is set forth under amendment 80 and so for for judicial candidates and basically we've just taken the term judicial candidate nonpartisan judicial candidates say nonpartisan candidate and so given that we are essentially just piggybacking on to what's already the
case with regard to judicial races that gives me some level of comfort that
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
38:58
would agree if you're using a proven process there I'm confident that you've got it
covered additionally I just as more of a don't you agree type question anything else I guess as we have set in this room as a member of City County audit and I've watched numerous times and I know many of the members of committee have been
very frustrated as we watched report after report after report be referred to prosecutors and while there's it's certainly anecdotal and no direct evidence it's my belief that many times the decision not to prosecute some of those audits has been made because of party affiliation and I think it's in the best interest of the people this state that we make law enforcement nonpartisan don't you agree well I you know I don't know
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
39:44
all the ins and outs of those specific scenarios I do agree that I think
it's important to make this office nonpartisan I think that it just as it was important to make judicial
offices nonpartisan I think that this is something that that serves the best interest of people of Arkansas
and should give the people of Arkansas even greater confidence in the fine work that that you know our various prosecutors do across the state thank you madam chair I'm finished representative Kerr thank you
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
40:18
madam chairman representative Shepherd you and I had a brief conversation about this bill and
and the partisan side of it aside what really gives me the stress is we're going to have yet another election a runoff election placed in a point in time when you're going to have very few people show up the second Tuesday of June is quite traditionally after depending on how many snow days we have all the kids the public schools are out of school and people have started their vacation plans and not around to vote and I'm just prosecutors office is an
important office and I just I've got a problem with yet another election that's going to have a low turnout would you agree that would be better I mean if you're going to change this to change the situation to nonpartisan that we still have a runoff election at a point in time when we are going to have a good number of voters show up well I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:32
would agree that we want as many people as possible to vote
I would I would view this as a positive if that's the concern we already have we already have runoff elections in any any other race except judicial races the runoff after
the primary is three weeks later whatever this date is and so in my view that this bill
actually helps to unify all those races prosecutor races are already the
runoff is is presently where it is now because they're partisan races and so I think it's I view it as a positive that we bring judicial races in line with what's being done in every other race in the state of Arkansas and thereby I think that that's going to promote turnout again I just think that that having a runoff that's six or seven months however long after the initial election when in a candidate a candidate does not know whether they're in a race
for a three-month period or a nine-month period and again with judicial races they can't talk about the issues anyway and it's just I mean that's the same issue we all have if we have a runoff as state representatives or as candidates for state representatives then it's it's important for us to get the vote out and to get people to the polls that's just part of the process and so I understand the concern I understand obviously a race in November is going to have a more
significant turnout but I just believe that the the positives to moving it up outweigh that particular concern. And I think Representative Steele may have something to add on. If I could add one more thing, one difference between
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
43:21
State Representative and other races, it's not just a matter of convenience to have that extra time, but you're talking about going into a judgeship or a prosecutor's office where you're probably full-time and conflicts abound. You've got a lot of ex-clients and cases you've got to wrap up before you get on the bench. I think it's a lot easier for that to be done over a series of several months
than between November and January 1st for a prosecutor to get rid of old cases, wrap them up, and try to avoid conflicts that he's going to have as soon as he takes office January 1, and same for judges. So it's not just
a matter of convenience, as it is for us, as state representatives and others. It's a matter
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
44:00
of avoiding conflicts. Would you have to do the same type of thing if you're an attorney running for a state representative or Senate? You're still going to have
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
44:09
to wrap up your cases before January. it's not not not really the same thing basically and representative Steele or
certainly representative Walker representative Nichols can could speak to this as well when you run for state representative and you face the prospect of you know serving during the first several months such
as this year what you're trying to you can number one you can still practice law while you're here and number two you're really just talking about clearing your schedule for you know three months with a someone elected to be a judge or prosecutor they have to wind up their law practice they have to make sure that their clients
that they have taken care to conclude their clients business and make arrangements to deliver their files to their clients wrap up their billing and other things there I mean it's it's just a much bigger process than what any of us as attorneys in the Statehouse have to face and I think representative still alluding to that that you know and I touched on that earlier I think that's another very significant point to this and then also it's my understanding when
when someone is elected to a judicial office I mean they they spend part of their time going to judicial schools and I'm assuming the same thing happens for prosecutors where they go into some training to prepare them for the office that they are going to take in January. So there are all kinds of demands on their time during that very short period of time, and I think that it serves the public good to give them ample time to wind up their practice and also give them ample time to prepare so that when they enter the office on day one,
they're prepared to serve as a prosecutor or judge.
Speaker 30
45:58
In the interest of time, we've got ten minutes before session
Speaker 11
46:03
starts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. In the interest of time, I'm going to go to two people. We have several on the list. I'm going to go to two people who have not asked a question at this point, and that would be representative. And that leaves us with Representative Clemmer.
You pass. All right. But then we have Walker, Hutchison, and Nichols. All of you
have asked a question previously, and that's fine. I'll go ahead and recognize
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
46:41
you, Representative Walker. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to be brief. I guess I have too much experience with the judicial system to be comfortable with this. In my early cases, in all due respect, Representative Steele, coming from South Arkansas, I encountered
the situation where the prosecuting attorney was in the same family as the district judge, and then when I had an appeal to go forward, I had to go to the circuit judge, and there was that person's family member there. And that situation was repeated in a number of counties throughout the state. And what I observed was that when a person gets his or her foot in the door at the beginning level,
that means that you have, in effect, a family legacy established where the name perpetuates all of the changes. Is there a question in here, Representative Walker? So my question is, and you're familiar with what I'm talking about, Is there anything that could prevent that from happening? And the other question, just a moment. Is there anything here to keep these people from disclosing their political affiliations?
I mean, you say they're nonpartisan, but we all know that we're all partisan in one sense or another, and that we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
48:14
vote in a particular primary. As to your second point, and then
I think Representative Steele will take the first, with regard to disclosing their political affiliation, there's nothing to prohibit them from otherwise being politically active. What we're talking about is basically who
they pay their filing fee to and whether there is a designation on the ballot of the political party to which they belong.
Otherwise, they can continue. I'm not aware of any prohibition on a prosecutor, and Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, but of any prohibition on a prosecutor being otherwise politically active. We're really just talking about who they
pay the filing fee to and then the designation on the ballot. If I might
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
49:02
also speak to that, in large part, as far as the family control, You know, I'm a sixth-generation attorney, and I'm sure you're referring to a lot of my folks there.
And no offense taken, no offense taken, we're proud of that legacy. But in large part, their ability to ascend to those different positions and play musical chairs, if you will, between judges and prosecutors and all that is not just family name, but it's control over the local party. And we're taking the party out of this. So I think this would serve as a benefit to make sure we have a diversity of new people coming into those offices. And secondly, as to the political activity, prosecutors will not be able to hide behind the same excuses of not answering questions on where they stand on issues that judges can
because they're prohibited from answering a lot of those questions about issues that may come before the court. Prosecutors won't have that excuse. So certainly they're going to be vetted in their races. They're going to be asked where they stand on this, where they stand on that, and they're going to have to answer those questions just as we do. They're not going to have those same those
Speaker 5
50:15
same prohibitions, so I don't that's not a concern
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
50:21
of ours representative Hutchison Past representative Nichols Yes have a comment about the amendment 80
West Fowler
Unverified
50:27
Does it does that amendment have language in there about the runoffs will be held in the general election? we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:37
don't think so I mean all I can say on that point is that that I've worked very closely with BLR on drafting the bill and that that certainly was a concern that they looked at and I think I think that I may have raised that issue with them about any constitutional restriction but I can't I can't say for absolute
Speaker 58
50:58
certainty other than this was drafted by BLR and we went over it very
West Fowler
Unverified
51:02
multiple times well I'm just wondering if this language that we have here is just the enabling legislation that's dictated by amendment 80 and this if that's the case then this may be in violation of amendment 80 if if I get this bill out of committee I'll be glad to look
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:19
at that would you be willing to pull it down so
West Fowler
Unverified
51:22
we can look at that and vote on it because we're running out of time and there seems to be a lot
Speaker 81
51:28
of questions still out there I'm from the I would I mean per yours
yours is the last one just for the record and no one
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
51:36
has spoken as signed up to speak from the public my other point is
West Fowler
Unverified
51:47
you've talked a lot about attorneys needing a long time to prepare to assume these offices when we elect a president the United States in November and they take office in January so are you saying we need to give them
Speaker 72
52:01
more time also or what our prosecuting attorneys needs more more of a learning curve than
Speaker 84
52:07
somebody generally generally the president candidates for president
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:12
United States have been on the campaign trail and solely preparing themselves for that office for multiple years whereas generally candidates for prosecuting attorney and judicial offices have a job that they have to do and primarily the practice of law so it I guess I see some distinction there but
do agree that November to January is a pretty short period of
Speaker 11
52:42
no one I have no one signed up from the public to speak for against I'm double checking on that representative Miller did you sign up sir in
the interest of time and because you didn't
sign up in advance I'm going to I'm going to pass on that representative Miller I'll recognize you for a motion
Speaker 11
53:16
All those in favor? No second is needed for a motion. Do pass. All right. Okay. Chill. Substitute motion
Speaker 4
53:31
motion to table. That's debatable. table? You're substituting, pardon
Speaker 20
53:39
me, you're substituting a motion to table it. Pardon
Speaker 11
53:44
me. Do I need a second? No. All right. All those in favor to table, say aye. Aye. All those opposed nay okay let's try that again all those in favor of tabling aye aye all those opposed nay we'll roll call it Baird represent Hobbs
Speaker 156
54:27
representative Hopper yes represent climber represent Nichols representative Kerr represent
Speaker 158
54:46
represent of Altus representative Catlett representative Westerman representative Westerman representative Hickerson
Speaker 160
55:11
representative Ritchie representative Ritchie representative Dawson representative Miller
Speaker 158
55:21
representative Hutchinson representative Wagner representative Wilkins
Speaker 11
55:29
represent Wilkins the nose habit it is not tabled I'll go back to the original motion by representative Miller do you pass all those in favor aye all those opposed
nay since we just did you yeah we just did a roll call previously so I'm gonna rule it that the eyes have it thank you thank you all thank you members Thank you.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Speaker 5
West Fowler
Unverified
Speaker 14
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 11
Speaker 20
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 8
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 16
Representative Josh Miller Chair
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Speaker 9
Speaker 72
Speaker 82
Speaker 84
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 10
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 85
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 118
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 128
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 58
Speaker 81
Speaker 78
Speaker 4
Speaker 156
Speaker 158
Speaker 159
Speaker 160