House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB354
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB354”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1446
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1446”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1602
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1602”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1827
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1827”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1889
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1889”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1909
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1909”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2043
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2043”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2093
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2093”
|
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
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:00
I have the pleasure and privilege of going to the second floor and getting my picture taken with the city of Elaine who just secured a much needed funds for a fire truck down there. So with that I have talked to the parliamentarian and I have the permission to appoint Eddie Cheatham to take my place when I leave. So if Representative Cheatham would come up, and then without exception, we have granted Representative Hopper her request to take Senate Bill 354 out of order and to first on the list because she has some witnesses with us.
And after that, we have also Representative Allen has asked because he's got to run another bill on another committee. So it's going
to be Representative Hopper first and Representative Allen second. And after that, we will start on the regular agenda as is appropriate. And I'm going to turn my seat over to my distinguished colleague and friend who sat here last year.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:13
And there you are. Thank you. Could be dangerous, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. Ms. Hopper, are you ready to run? Is it Senate Bill 354? Let me come over. Would you recognize yourself
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:33
for the record, please, and then you may proceed? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Karen Hopper, House member, District 81. And I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank you, Committee, for this opportunity this morning to bring Senate Bill 354 to you.
Briefly, as you note in the subtitle, this bill clarifies that discretion is granted to state-supported institutions of higher education whether or not to compensate all employees for unpaid sick leave on retirement or death. And with that and your permission, I would like to turn this over to Lucinda McDaniel, who will officially recognize herself and further
explain the need for this bill, please. That'll be – go ahead, ma'am.
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
2:21
Good morning. My name is Lucinda McDaniel. I'm university counsel to the Arkansas State University System, and we are seeking your help in clarifying the legislature because there is a gap right now for non-classified employees with respect to incentivizing them to decrease their sick leave. The statutes currently address what we can do to encourage our state employees to not abuse their sick leave, and the incentive is to pay them on death or retirement only a portion of the unused sick leave.
Included in the language is all state employees, and then specifically Game and Fish Commission, State Highway Commission, classified employees, and then specifically non-classified employees of two-year colleges, what we're asking is simply that you give discretion to allow our four-year colleges to compensate and incentivize their non-classified employees just as we do all our other state employees. So we've really got a gap there that we need to be closed. We've worked with the Attorney General's Office.
We've worked with Legislative Audit, and they have asked us to please come here and get the legislation clarified. So we think this bill will do that, and we would
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
3:37
appreciate your consideration of it. Committee, any questions? Seeing none, I'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Come back to the committee. Now, is this for all four-year
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
3:51
institutions, covers all four-year institutions? It would, but it's entirely discretionary.
Speaker 19
3:54
They may elect or may not elect to do that. Okay. Mr.
Speaker 22
4:03
Wilkins, do you have a motion? Motion is proper to add, Mr. Chair. Committee, excuse me, Mr. Nichols, do you have a question? You have
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
4:07
to excuse me. I want to make sure I got the, is this one on the 354 Senate bill? Okay, is this about the payment of sick leave? Okay. I seem to recall several years ago that some of the employees from the UA Fayetteville campus,
Anybody here from Fayetteville got past where they could get paid their sick leave when they left, but the teacher retirement system objected to it because it would be a spike in their final salaries. So have you looked at that particular law that's on the book regarding Fayetteville?
And are you amending that or taking that
Speaker 30
5:00
into account? We have. We have looked into whether or
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
5:04
not this amendment would have any effect on teacher retirement, and it will have none whatsoever. It is a lump sum payment made at the discretion of the institution only to folks who have
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:17
not used their sick leave. But that is considered salary. It is considered wages, if I'm not mistaken, so unless you have an exemption where you're
not holding out the retirement contributions, and I realize that not all, I think all institutions, I think there's an option to be in teacher retirement. Most are in the alternative plans, but so that's, but anyway, You're amending the, I guess I was in there for the two-year schools, and you're making apply to all the four-year schools, but I would prefer if you look and see about that
Fayetteville legislation and see if there's any conflict with that, because I don't see you referencing that specific legislation that related to Fayetteville. No, sir. And we have worked with all the institutions of higher
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
6:18
education and made them aware of this bill, plus we have double-checked with teacher retirement to make sure there would be no impact upon their retirement benefits. So I think we're in good shape. Okay. Well, if you
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
6:32
have touched base with teacher retirement, then that's fine then.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
6:42
you have a question? Yes. How many institutions currently are doing this?
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
6:48
There are no four-year institutions now because they are not authorized to do that. The other institutions participate at discretion only, and I do not know how many participate and how
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
7:02
many do not. It is entirely discretionary. So on page two, in the current statute, the compensation is not used by ATRS on lines
one through four? Yes, that's correct. So that's currently, so that would, that's what has currently been happening with the two years? Correct.
Speaker 33
7:23
Okay. And so that would continue with the... That's exactly correct. So there would be no impact on ATRS. And you're sure that no four years have been giving unused sick leave compensation? I know ours has, which is why we were asked to come and
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
7:41
clarify the language, because our Board of Trustees desired to exercise their discretion and give that, and so that's
That's why we were asked to please come and get the gap closed so we would have authority
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
7:52
to do that if we want to do that in
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
7:58
our discretion. MS. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Mr.
Nichols. Yes, you're saying compensate a non-classified employee. In the higher education world, what is considered a – who is considered
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
8:14
a non-classified employee? MS. Non-classified employee has a broad range. It could be someone who is working as an administrative
assistant. They could be a non-classified employee. It could be an administrator, could be a faculty member, those who fall outside the specific
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:31
state classifications. Well, do you fall under what the, I guess, regular state employees fall under the Uniform The Compensation Classification Act, is that correct? MS. Our classified employees do, yes, sir. So there are at least the higher education version of that act. So if they are a classified employee, are they entitled, does this act enable you to
Speaker 30
9:02
compensate them for their unused sick leave? MS. The act
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
9:08
requires that they be compensated already. Where is that? MS. It's in 21.4503, classified employees of state-supported institutions of higher education are covered under the Act. So they're already covered. Two-year non-classifieds are covered under discretion. The only thing we're asking is to close that gap and make four-year institutions also have the discretion, as two-years currently have, to compensate non-classified employees for their conserving and being in the classroom
or being at work or being in the office and not utilizing their sick
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
9:47
leave. Okay, but faculty, when a faculty is off sick, normally that class
is just missed. There's not a substitute teacher for that class. Would you agree with that? I don't
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
10:02
know that that is a normal course. Many institutions require that the professor, if they're going to be sick and, of course,
have enough notice, have someone cover for that class. Okay.
Speaker 30
10:23
But again, this would be a very important closing of the gap
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
10:27
to, again, incentivize those non-classified employees to be at work, be in the office, be in the classroom, as as opposed to utilizing their sick leave?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
10:36
Well, I think it's, for the most part, it's only going, this amendment is only going
to cover the faculty and the administrators who are not within the pay plan.
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
10:48
We'll also cover all the classified employees who work in offices who are outside the classified designation, and there are a number of those as well, those folks that we rely on to come in and prepare our documents. For example, my legal assistant is non-classified. I rely on her to come in to be ready to assist me in answering legal questions. Okay. No further questions. Any other questions? If not, we
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
11:23
have a motion on the floor. Motion
do pass by Rep. Wilkins. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Leave the ayes have it. Thank you ladies for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vallon, are you here to run a bill?
Speaker 68
11:57
I think Mr. Clark Hall has put you down first, I believe. What number
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
12:15
is that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. You're running House Bill
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
12:19
1909. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I will let R.T. Williams with Workforce Development
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
12:27
explain his bill. 1909, committee and Mr. Williams, just identify yourself, the record, and whoever else is
there that will participate, and then we'll proceed. Thank
Speaker 74
12:36
you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. R.T. Williams, Director, Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. With us today also is Mr. Ron Calkins, who is our Director for the Unemployment Insurance Program. In the interest of time for the committee, I would ask we allow Mr. Calkins to give you a brief explanation of the bill. That will be
Speaker 76
12:58
proper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 1 of this bill addresses a long-time provision that we had in our law that addresses
employees of educational institutions. It basically prevents educational employees from drawing unemployment insurance benefits between educational terms and holiday breaks. And recently we've had one or two employer groups within the state that are more or less temporary help firms that supply substitute teachers to educational institutions. And it was our opinion that those employees of the temporary help firm would not be entitled, would not
be found ineligible between terms. And that ended up going to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed with us, but then it went on to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said because of the wording of our statute that these employees of the temporary help firms should also be found ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits between terms. So Section 1 basically is a change in the language of our statute to make it clear as the title of the statute implies or the subtitle of the statute implies employees of educational
institutions. And so this is a change to make it clear
Speaker 77
14:20
that this ineligibility only applies to actual employees of educational institutions. Okay.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
14:29
Representative Nichols, do you have a question? Yes, Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
14:35
Chairman. Mr. Calkins or Mr. Williams, I'm a little bit surprised that this bill is in the State Agencies Committee. This is dealing with eligibility for unemployment
insurance and I think they normally go to the Health and Labor Committee. Is that correct? Well, Mr.
Williams and Mr. Calkins didn't assign it. I know. I'm just making that statement, but I also know a little bit of how unemployment insurance legislation progresses here in this state. And there is – can you tell me if the
advisory committee has taken a position on this piece of legislation?
Speaker 76
15:25
aware of, has not taken a position on any of our elements of
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:33
our bill. Has this particular
bill been given to the labor representatives and management representatives prior to it being filed? Yes, sir. Okay. But neither management or
labor has said they are in agreement or disagreement on this bill.
Speaker 76
15:53
Is that correct? Well, the normal course of business is that both of those parties would agree upon our legislation, and they have not come together and agreed upon our legislation or, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:10
either way on any of these sections in our law. I think I'm opposed to this bill because the courts, I think, properly interpreted the law, And if your employer is a temporary agency and they lay you off, then they should be liable for the unemployment insurance benefits for the employees they have laid off.
I'm afraid this bill might encourage school districts to contract out their substitute work to these temp agencies, and I just think that's bad public policy. Well, that's what the – excuse me, Representative, but that's what the Supreme Court's really
Speaker 92
16:47
in effect would allow to happen, and we're trying to prevent that from happening.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:55
Are you trying to say that – well, did the Supreme Court say that these employees
right now, when they are laid off or they are not assigned work, that they are not
Speaker 76
17:12
eligible for unemployment or they are eligible for unemployment? What the Supreme Court said is when it is between terms or holiday breaks that these temporary help from employees would be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:24
just like a regular educational employee. Okay. That's what they are treating them just like a regular education employee.
Now, during the school year, are they eligible if they only work, say, two days out of the school week?
So I think under your law that would be considered
partial employment or part-time employment. Are they eligible for unemployment during that
Speaker 76
17:48
week? Yes, for both educational employees and the part-time temporary help from employees would be, depending on how much money they earned. Okay. If the Chair
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
18:00
will allow, I notice the representative from the Chamber of Commerce has just come in the room. I'd like for
him to answer some questions about this legislation.
Actually, he's not a part of this. Well, Representative Allen, the Chamber of Commerce and Labor are definitely a
part of unemployment insurance legislation. So I'm just asking if we can
hear the State Chamber's position on this. If you'd like to sign up to speak for or against
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
18:36
the bill, we'd be willing to do that. And I'll just for informational purposes in
a minute if you want to do that.
Speaker 103
18:45
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
18:53
for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure
who can answer this, but we employ teachers through contracts like Teach for America. are those when those employees their contracts end are they eligible for unemployment benefits with this legislation I would
Speaker 77
19:16
I'm trying to remember there is a group of employees out there
Speaker 76
19:22
that it's and I'm thinking I'm not sure if it's Teach for America or not but there's a group out there that are not considered educational employees such as you're But I'd have to look in, you know, a little closer into exactly who these employees are. And if I could get some more information about the group and if they're, you know, if they're a nonprofit or governmental agency or that
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
19:49
sort of thing, but they're contracted with,
I mean, school districts contract with them to provide teachers in those school districts for a period of time. So
Speaker 109
19:59
they have a finite contract. their contract is up, are they
Speaker 77
20:08
eligible for unemployment? It would depend on who.
Speaker 76
20:12
You're contracting with a group, and I don't know exactly what that group is, and I don't know if they're contributing employers or reimbursable employers, or if they're even covered under our
law or not. And so, I mean, I'd need more information before I can answer that question. MS. All right. Thank
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:38
you, sir. MS. Lieutenant Penard, do you have a question? MS. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I apologize. The gentleman that has been responding to the questions, what is your name,
Speaker 112
20:51
sir? MR. Ron Calkins. MS. Hawkins? MR. Calkins with a C. MS.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:54
Hawkins, okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Conkins, I'm a little confused here. I'm no specialist in labor law. I'm just a little old country girl here. So I'm going to pose a scenario for you and
ask questions about it. I'm a teacher. I have a nine-month contract with the school. I'm off during the semester break, and
I go, and I'm being paid during that time period because I'm on a nine-month
contract and I get nine equal installments, and I go to work for some company doing something valuable, and they don't
need me any longer during that 30 days or three weeks that we're Now, does that employee of that part-time or that company, part-time job, can collect unemployment from being employed for that two or three weeks
Speaker 76
22:05
that company? Well, the answer to your question is that we cannot use any educational wages to pay benefits between terms or holiday periods. So if this individual had other wages outside the educational wages, and they were
Speaker 121
22:24
unemployed during this between terms or holiday break. But they're not unemployed.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:29
Under my scenario, sir, they're not unemployed. They're on a nine-month contract with the school district.
They get paid for that time they're off, essentially during the break.
Speaker 76
22:40
Right. And they would not be able to use any of those wages to establish an unemployment insurance claim to pay
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:47
benefits between terms. The wages from the school or the
wages from the part-time job? Wages from the school. Okay. So how then does this apply to that teacher? It doesn't apply at all to that teacher. So now I'm really confused. I don't understand what's going on here. I'm a teacher. I've been laid off by the school and
Speaker 126
23:07
I go get a part-time job.
Then this applies? No, ma'am. And what this
Speaker 77
23:13
applies to is there's a group out there, an employer, that provides substitute teachers for school districts. And who is that? Subteach USA. Okay. And
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
23:23
so I'm a person out there,
and I go and sub for about a month and a half. And then I'm not
needed anymore. I can apply for unemployment? Well, again, if I
Speaker 76
23:39
could try to give it another stab at explaining what this section does.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
23:46
That's what I'm trying to understand. I really want to understand the
Speaker 86
23:54
bill, sir, so I know how to vote on it.
Speaker 76
23:58
I will. The bill, the statute is entitled Employees of Educational Institutions. And it's
Speaker 132
24:04
always been our interpretation. Employee, not a contract. Right, an employee
Speaker 76
24:08
of an educational institution. And what happened was we had this subteach, this temporary help firm, supplying substitute
teachers to school districts. They're the employee of subteach. And we did not apply the ineligibility to those people, to those substitute teachers, because they were not employees of the educational institution. They were employees of the temporary help firm. Through
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:34
a contractual relationship between the school and that entity? Yes, ma'am. And did those individuals in that contractual relationship, did they teach full-time? They were substitute teachers.
No, that's not the question I ask. Let me use your language then. They're substitute teachers, but they taught full-time? No, ma'am. They served as
Speaker 77
24:56
substitute teachers. If the teacher was sick, then they would take that teacher's life. Okay, so they're true
Speaker 76
25:04
subs? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. And so SubTeach didn't like the fact that we would not apply the ineligibility to their substitute teachers because, of course, they would be charged for benefits that were paid
to these individuals between terms and holiday periods.
Speaker 136
25:20
And that would be against them and their unemployment compensation rate. Yes,
Speaker 76
25:23
ma'am. And so they filed a case in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals agreed with us that it only applies to employees of educational institutions, not to the employees of subteach. So then the subteach took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, saying that the way our statute was worded, it would apply to these substitute teachers. And to be in compliance with the exclusion that the federal law lets us make, we have
to make it clear that this ineligibility only applies to actual employees of educational institutions. Okay, I got it now.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
26:03
Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, any additional questions? Representative Nichols,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
26:08
do you have that look on your face? I finally agree that
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
26:12
this is good legislation. Praise the Lord. Committee, any other questions? Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience.
Anyone who wants to speak against this bill, for this bill, the committee will come back to you. I would entertain a motion. Motion by Representative Penartz. Motion do pass. Motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, like a sign, leave the ayes have it. Mr. Allen, you finally passed the bill. Thank you.
Committee, we're going to move Representative Hammers up. I believe he is next, House Bill 1827. Mr. Hammer, would you have a seat,
please, and recognize yourself for the record? Thank you, Mr. Chair. My
Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:08
name is Kim Hammer, State Representative, District 28. And also, if he gets back in the room or if he's in the room, I'd like to ask with permission, A.J., with the Secretary of State's office to sit beside him. I believe he just showed up.
Speaker 79
27:23
He just needs to identify himself, and we'll proceed. Thank you. A.J. Kelly
Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:36
with the Secretary of State's office. You may proceed, Mr. Hammer. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the chair and the committee taking this out of order. I'd like to start by reading to you a statement that started an article in the Selene Courier newspaper from Benton, where I'm located. It says, in a surprise move, Selene County Collector Christopher Lyons announced today that he is leaving his office to become a new executive director for the Association
of Arkansas Counties. And it was with Chris's permission that I cited his name today, and the key phrase I'd like you to lock in on that statement is, in a surprise move. As a result of that surprise move, it revealed in the current election laws that there's an area that I felt needed to be addressed, and I'd like to explain briefly the situation that happened and then explain the intent of why I'm bringing this bill before you. Chris, who represented one of the parties in Saline County, political parties in Saline County,
had filed to run, and the other political party in the county did not have anyone who filed to run. After the time frame of the date, Chris had made that announcement, and therefore it left it open to where no one from either of the parties were able to file and to run. And so this bill is intended to address that issue, and some of the intent of the bill is that it would allow to bring all candidates of all parties, regardless of which one they're
from, if you'll excuse the expression and illustration, to the starting line at the same time. It would also help eliminate some of the disenfranchising of the voters that we experienced in Saline County, I believe, giving them as accurate and as accessible information to make good educated choices. This bill, while not coming with the endorsement of the Secretary of State, I did consult with him to make sure that it would not be opening Pandora's box to anything that would come down the line.
And this bill is intended to help level the playing field so that all political parties are expected to comply by the same requirements. And with the Chairman's permission, I'd like to identify a couple things that are noted in the bill and give a brief explanation, if that's all right, with the Chair. That will be fine. Thank you. On page 1, you'll see underlines 28 through 30 as they're underlined. What this is intended to do is to have all new parties have a convention and not a primary
the first time around. You go over to the next page, and you'll notice that there are some issues that address the time frames that are mentioned. If you go to the top of page 2, line 5 and 6, this doesn't deal with the time frames, but it's in the order in which the bill is written. This is intended to make sure that the petitions that are submitted by any new political parties, the integrity of those petitions are protected not only for the sake of the party, but also for the sake of those whose names may appear on the petition.
It also gives the timeframe of which this is to happen in number B there on lines seven and eight. And then when you look and you see that there's some issues dealing with the timeframes that are mentioned on lines 15 through 17 and down at verse 33. Part of the reason these time frame issues are addressed is to help make sure that all voters have, that all votes are handled in a timely manner, especially the absentee and the military votes, and also to give the officials that are going to be dealing with the election
process plenty of time to be able to treat them with the integrity of which they need
Speaker 150
31:09
to be treated. And with that being said, I'll be glad to take any questions from the committee. MR.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
31:15
Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Kelly, have Secretary of State's Office invented this pretty well? MR. Yes, sir. MR.
Speaker 147
31:22
Do you have any problems? MR. No, sir. We would have no objection.
Speaker 151
31:26
We're not pushing it, but we have no objection to it. Okay.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
31:33
All right. Committee, any questions? Representative Hutchinson? MS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Hammer.
So my understanding is if this new party collects a certain required amount of signatures, they can have a convention, and then they can choose local, county, statewide. They can choose candidates for any of these
Speaker 155
31:59
offices that run on a party label. Subject to being
Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:05
corrected by AJC next to me, I believe that's correct. If you look on page 1, 21 through 26, it identifies the areas of election.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
32:25
No change there. All right, so they can nominate a gathering at Little Rock for a convention. They can nominate a state rep or state senator any place around the state? Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. I have Representative Penartz. Good morning, Representative Hammer. Good morning.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
32:57
Since I'm not an expert on elections laws, thank goodness, what is the definition in entitled 7 in this Chapter 7 of a definition of a new political party. That's the first time I've – I know it's used in the statute, so it must be defined someplace, and
I'm asking what the definition is. If it's all right with you, I'm going to
Speaker 147
33:24
refer to A.J., if that's all right with you.
Certainly, sir. Thank you. My understanding would be one that had not previously been certified. For example, a party that had lost its certification by failing to obtain 3 percent
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
33:44
gubernatorial election. MS. In the previous general election? MR. In the previous general, yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. So that would be a new political party. Even if, A.J., even if that party had
been a political party prior to that time? MR. Yes, ma'am. MS.
It's the 3 percent rule? MR. Yes, ma'am. Representative Hammer on page two, line 33 and 34,
and either to you or to A.J., I wondered at the change here
on line 33 where it says no later than the original language is no later than 60 days prior to the general election. And I'm wondering why the change, so as noon, would noon of the date of the preferential
primary election be approximately 60 days? Or I mean, what's the difference? Please
explain to me the difference in the wording there. MR. I will
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:42
explain to you the intent and I'll let A.J. speak to the specifics if
Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:46
that's right. MR. Thank you, sir. MR. What we're trying to do is harmonize the timeframes of all political parties that are wanting to participate in the process, and the reason that the changes to the timeframes, whether it's the noon or whether it's the 45 days or any of it, is intended to harmonize so that everybody is walking in step with each other and that no one party, my terminology,
has an advantage or disadvantage would be the greater thing to protect. Any political party would be disadvantaged by having separate timeframes, but I'll defer to A.J., if I may, if that's all right with you, to add anything to
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
35:24
that. Well, thank you, Mr. Hammer, and maybe I can connect, maybe. It seemed to me that this language may be
in conflict with lines 16 through 18, and I just wanted to make sure that because there seems to be a conflict, like I said, I'm no
expert on this, but there seems to be a conflict between lines 16 through 18 with what you're trying to do on line 33 and 34. Could you explain to me that, clarifying that? It seems to be in
Speaker 167
35:54
conflict. MR. May I ask you a question in response to help
Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:59
me get a better understanding of what area of how are you not understanding the connection, if I may? MS.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:07
Well, I mean, just explain it to me. Explain it to me your understanding of how those two sections are not in conflict.
MR. All right. If I may, I'll just. MS. MR. That's fine, Representative Hamer. No problem.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:20
MR. Okay. If it's all right, I'll go ahead and attempt to explain the nay, Jane. Correct me if I'm wrong, if that's all right. On pages 15 – I'm sorry, lines 15 to
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:29
17. MR. Page 2, lines 16 through 18. MR. Right. MR. In reference
to lines 33, 34. How is that not in conflict? MR. May I just clarify for Representative Hamer? I
Speaker 147
36:38
have the actual bill. He's looking at a draft. If you'll use my lines, you'll be on the right page with the representative.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:44
MR. I'm sorry. I didn't know that you didn't have a
Speaker 150
36:48
copy of the bill. I should have. If I'm running
Speaker 174
36:51
the bill, I should have had the right one, shouldn't I?
Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:54
Well, we'll let you change over down there. Thank you. I'm going to read this just for the purpose of making sure I'm on the same page that you have. Starting with line 16, a new political party that wishes to select nominees for the next general election shall file a sufficient petition no later than 45 days before the preferential primary. The intent was subject to correction by A.J.
The intent of this is to make sure that there's plenty of time before the preferential primary election
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:19
to have, and the 45 days allows that. Now, move down to line 34, you say? 33 and 34.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
37:27
Okay. Where it starts no later than. All right. No later than
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:31
60 days prior to the general election, noon of the day of the preferential
Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:36
election. And the intent, I believe, what we're trying to achieve there is to move it up closer to the 45 so that we can handle everything that we're receiving in a more timely manner.
Speaker 147
37:47
Is that correct? MR. See if I can summarize it just slightly differently. So I would say that the intent then is that they file their petition before the preferential primary, gives them a timeframe to have their convention, and then the results of that convention must be known and filed on the noon of the day of the preferential primary so that they don't know, that is, the new political party does not know, the results of
Speaker 152
38:12
the preferential primary. There should be ample time to do both things, I believe.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:18
Well, that's what I was concerned with
when you're mixing the dates around like that. I was trying to do a scenario in my own mind. And so, A.J., speaking as Secretary of State's office, you do not believe or think that those two sections are in conflict, if
I understand what you just said. Does not appear to be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:49
You stated that you think the Secretary of State's office believes it's not a prima facie conflict. Is that what you just said? MR. Correct. If the
Speaker 147
38:57
petition is filed 45 days beforehand, roughly gives them 45 days to have their convention, they need to have things done and decided by that noon of the ‑‑ MS. So, in
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
39:07
fact, you do not believe the Secretary of State's office does not
believe that there's a conflict, period? MR. Correct. MS. Okay. Thank
Speaker 112
39:16
you very much. I appreciate the explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 180
39:20
Representative Nichols, I believe you're next. Yes.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
39:29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I understand the part on the noon of
the day of the preferential primary election. So what your bill would do would be if somebody loses, say in a preferential primary, they cannot go get on the ballot of a new political party
to run for that office because the preferential primary would have already been held, is
that correct? That is correct, sir. Okay. And all of us, I think, as politicians recognize that, that we would like to know who our opponents are going to be.
Is that kind of what's motivating this bill? I would say that's part of it, but the
Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:20
bigger part of it is that the voters have a right to know
who is going to be running as early as possible and to level the playing field so that the voters know that from the beginning. But a direct answer to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
40:37
your question, yes, sir. Okay. So I assume this – did Representative Branscom have this type of issue in
Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:46
his race? I'm not familiar. I'm doing this, the motivation to bring this, besides realizing that this surprise, as noted
in the paper, could happen anywhere in the state, it just happened that it was of particular interest in my district, and I was asked by several of my constituents to address it
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
41:09
so that this could be corrected. Since we're changing the election laws, and the stakeholders are in election laws, I guess, would be the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and other political parties.
Have you consulted with them on drafting of this or asked what their positions might be?
Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:30
I did not specifically ask the heads of either one of the parties, and I will explain my reasoning for that. Fair is fair. Right is right. The voters need to have the best process in place. And as far as co-sponsors on this bill, although I do not believe listed at the top, yes, there are. You'll see that there are a few, that there are representatives from both sides being the Democrats and the Republicans. And this bill, I do believe, does not do anything to discourage or to disadvantage any new political party that wishes to enter someone into the race.
It just clearly defines the points at which it's going to start.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
42:21
How does this take care of – because it seems to me that I recall that the Green Party was able to get on the ballot through litigation, because there were some problems with the law, I guess, that excluded them from being on the ballot. Is this subject to that same type of challenge, do you think, or have you looked at that
Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:47
litigation? There was some litigation that stemmed out of Saline County, actually, but it wasn't because the Green Party was suing to get on the ballot. It was because of the events, the way they happened under the law that it is currently written, really disadvantaged the Democratic and Republican Party from being able to get candidates on the ballot other than through the write-in means and process.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
43:13
Okay. Well, I know, I think you said right is right.
But I think courtesy is courtesy, and I think it would have been a courtesy to run this past the political
parties to get their input on this. It may very well be a good bill. As a sitting politician, I'd like to know who my opponents are going to be. So I agree with that aspect of it,
but I'm concerned that there may be some unintended consequences here, and I'd be concerned about passing this and then having some litigation
and then still end up with an opponent that we have not thought of or had not surfaced. So that's not a criticism of the bill. It's just a concern that I have because this subject has been the topic of litigation in this state. So thank you,
Mr. Hammer. Thank you. May I respond? Sure. I would just like
Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:11
to bring attention to the fact, as far as co-sponsors, that there were co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle. And while I did not necessarily go to the leadership of the Republican Party
or the leadership of the Democratic Party, this has been in the crockpot for about four weeks, and part of that was to make sure that we gave time to all individuals, of which I surfaced it to, to be able to have input. Thank you. Okay, thank
Speaker 12
44:39
you. Mr. Cowling, do you have a question,
Speaker 190
44:43
I believe? Well, I just, the legal people looked at this, the legal people have looked at this as you drafted it, didn't they? I mean, you, so.
Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:54
Yes, sir. They have been heavily involved in the process because the last thing I wanted to do, sir, was to run a bill that's going to bring litigation down the road. Thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
45:08
you. I like it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Committee, any other,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
45:15
let's see. Representative Clemmer, I believe I have your name down. This is maybe information that I'm not sure I can phrase into a question. Maybe I'll just say, is it true, Representative Hamer, that your predecessor, Barbara Nix,
and our former colleague, Representative Dawn Creekmore, were both talking about introducing a bill of this nature? Do you remember seeing that in the paper? What I remember
Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:39
seeing in the paper is that this issue, because of the controversy surrounding it, drew their attention. But to my knowledge, that's all it did was draw their attention. As far as any effort put forth, this has been drafted pretty much out of the ground up. But, yes, it did draw their attention when that occurred.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
46:00
I was called after this happened and was told that both Representative Nix and Representative Creekmore, had she been elected to the Senate, had planned to introduce similar legislation to this. So that was mostly to speak to the fact that people on the Democratic side of the aisle in Saline County were very concerned that this hurt them as well as Republicans in Saline County. And our former colleagues were indeed against it.
So I realize I asked a question and then turned around and
Speaker 198
46:45
answered it. Thank you. Would you agree? Yes, I would. But I did that.
Speaker 19
46:48
Recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion at the appropriate time. Okay, thank you. Committee, any additional questions?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
46:54
Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. I have a motion by Representative Hutchinson, do pass.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I believe the ayes have it.
Speaker 68
47:13
Representative Hammer, you have passed your bill. Thank you, sir. I'll turn it back over to Mr. Clark Hall. Thank you, ladies and
Speaker 204
47:32
gentlemen, committee. Thank you, Representative Cheatham, for doing that for me.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
47:40
Well, bear with me one second. We're going to get this straight. Do we have
an impact statement on that? He's here? We're going to go back up to the top of the agenda is House Bill 1446 of Rep.
Williams. Are you here? Not here? House Bill 1498. Oh, whoa, there you are, Rep. Williams. I didn't see you. I apologize.
Speaker 209
48:12
Welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we have an amendment
Speaker 210
48:19
on this one? It's been engrossed. All right,
Speaker 171
48:21
sir. I took care of it before I got it. Do we have a – you
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
48:27
have the – you're at the end of the table. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is House Bill 1446, which is just further enabling legislation for the Capital Zoning District Commission. I have with me Boyd Mayer, who is Executive Director of that state agency. The Capital Zoning District, their territory includes what you would commonly know as the area around the governor's mansion.
And for those of you who have been to my house, yes, that includes my house. But I'm doing this not for myself but for the Capital Zoning District Commission as well as for my neighbors, the Neighborhood Association and the City of Little Rock who all support this bill. This bill simply provides greater enforcement authority for the Capital Zoning District Commission. It allows them to – which they're already allowed to – enter into a contract with the City of Little Rock for various code violation enforcements, particularly zoning violations. now they have safety and health code violations which they can have an agreement on.
Now this is going to expand it to zoning violations, and it is a good bill, and I would appreciate a good vote and happy to take any questions.
Speaker 213
49:36
Any questions from the committee? Are you willing to take questions, Reverend William? Absolutely I am. Is there any questions from the committee?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
49:45
Are you, anyone from the audience would like to speak against this? I need a motion first. We have a motion to do pass. Anyone
in the committee in the room would like to speak against this bill?
For this bill? All in favor, we have to do pass on
House Bill 1446. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Representative Williams, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I appreciate it. We're
Speaker 216
50:19
going to now House Bill 1498. anyone here to run 1498 well we'll come back as
Speaker 217
50:24
soon as it gets back in we're going to house bill 16, 1577
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
50:28
1602 1807 1834 I'm
going to pass over 1835 I'm passing over
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
50:56
1885 1889 1889
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
51:32
And I think you have the, as soon as you get to the mic, you have
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
51:40
the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, this is a unique bill, if you can believe it. There's a situation in Benton County, which as many of you know, we have 22 community colleges in the state. One community college, though, is only made up of a school district.
that being the Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville. In fact, it's made up of two school districts. So therefore, the Board of Trustees, when they get ready to run, there's nine Board of Trustees, nine trustees on the board of the community college. When they get ready to run for office, current law, of course, requires them, if their district is made up of one or more school districts, then they shall be elected at the annual school election.
This bill then will also state that, or will state, that if there are no more than one candidate for the Board of Trustees, then that board, by resolution, can ask the County Board of Election Commissioners to not open any polling places for that one candidate so that the election can be held by early and absentee voting only. This bill also provides, then, that that county, excuse me,
the community college board will pay their expenses of their election because they can't be on the same ballot as the annual school election, even though their election is held at the same time. I'll be happy to
Speaker 217
53:25
answer questions if I can. Yes, ma'am, is
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
53:29
there any representative Nichols? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Slaker, my concern
is that there will, the polling place will not be
open on election day. But we're going to be taking absentee ballots and early voting
only, so why can't you also They'll be there and have the polling place at the courthouse or at one local. Wherever early voting is going on, why can't it extend through Election Day
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
54:05
at that location? Okay. Thank you, Representative Nichols.
Actually we follow the same language as for the public school districts. That language provides that when there is only one candidate for a school board, then And the school board, that particular school board, can request the county board to open no polling places and to handle or to conduct the election by early and absentee ballots. It does require the printing of ballots for absentees. It does require programming a machine so that that candidate receives a vote, at least one
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
54:43
vote. I hope that helps. Yes, I understand
that. a number of school elections, and I tried to vote in school elections. I know they're not very heavily voted in, but it seems to me like I recall that there's usually we have to take a vote to continue the millage, and that's usually on there when we have candidates. So I don't know how that factors into this.
But this may be the language for other elections now. But if I was looking at that right now, I'd have the same problem. Something in me feels like there needs to be an election day. And I think we are
not recognizing that with this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions from the committee? Representative
Speaker 217
55:41
Klemmer? Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Representative
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
55:44
Rodgers, I did not see your hand, but Representative Klemmer.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
55:48
I will defer to Representative Rodgers. Representative Rodgers. Thank you, Representative Klemmer. Thank you. Question on Representative Slinker. You know I work at a community college, and so I just have some questions about how this applies across the state to other community colleges, because we do not elect our board members. They're appointed. And because the language in this is so general and vague, it appears that it applies across the state.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
56:22
Okay. Actually, of course, current law, and this was passed several years ago because of the uniqueness of the Northwest Arkansas Community College being comprised of only two school districts in Benton County. And that law was passed just because that's how the Northwest Arkansas Community College district was formed. It is not a countywide school district. And so the law was passed many years ago that provided, however, if the community college
district only comprised of that, they had to have their election at the annual school district election time because school district precincts or the precincts do not match the school district lines. And so it required then that the community college board of trustees be elected at that time even though they don't take office until January of the following year. They are elected in Benton County. Okay. Yeah. I may have
Speaker 242
57:19
forgotten the last part of your question. Well, I see where you're coming from on this.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
57:25
It just appears that the bill is not specific to your area, to your district, that it applies statewide, and that causes
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
57:37
me a little. I understand, if I may, it does say on line 34 on page 1 that for elections held at the annual school election, it comes after the however, if the board, I mean, if the college
district only comprises school districts, then for those elections that are held at the annual school election, it does bring it down to where it should only affect, in my opinion, it only affects Northwest Arkansas Community College, because I understand that other community colleges in the state are countywide districts. I may be wrong about that.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
58:22
Yeah. They're not – we each have a – each community college has a district that they serve, kind
of it's it's an unwritten type boundary I mean it's and it that's why it's very very hard to under there's nothing that says that we can't or that it's kind of an unwritten rule that we don't go outside of those certain boundaries as far as like to promote or advertise but it doesn't mean that someone can't be on our board as appointed it just concerns me that it's it appears this is requiring community college board members to be elected, and that's – because it – maybe
I'm misreading something. Maybe I – if there's –
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
59:09
I'm not sure. Of course, current law says all members
shall be elected for a term of six years, I mean, by the qualified electors of the community college district. And I'm I'm not sure about the other community colleges, even though our, you know, the community college in Benton County is elected by the electors of that district, and that district only composes the Rogers and the Bentonville School District, and their board of trustees is elected from
so many from the Rogers School District and so many from the Bentonville School District. And it should not, as far as I knew, this was the only community college that does elect their board of trustees at the annual school election because of that law that was passed several years ago that said, however, if that community college district composed of the
school district boundaries, then they would have to be elected at the annual school election. But there
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:00:21
are a lot of community colleges who do not hold elections for board members. They are appointed. There's no election process involved in it at all. Okay.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:00:28
Then this should not affect that at
all. Okay. This is only for those community colleges who elect at the annual school election. Okay. Thank you. Rep. McClendon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:00:45
I wanted to pick up on something Representative Nichols was asking about. Are we to assume that if there is a millage contest that nothing would change? I mean, if there is a millage vote, is it all candidate-driven about how the election is structured? Is it all based on the number of candidates, or is there also something that would make a normal election happen if there's a millage issue?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:01:18
Okay. If there's a millage issue, this would require, of course, in the annual school district election, they have to have a ballot anyway by, if there's only one candidate. They have to have a ballot. They have to have the millage question on that ballot. And the community college then has a separate ballot so that if they ever had a millage question, theirs would be on their separate ballot. It would not go on the annual school election ballot.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:01:51
And I may be, Representative Nichols may be satisfied. He just triggered the question for me. But if there's a contest on millage, then it's a normal kind of election. We're not eliminating any chance for people to vote for or
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:02:11
against a millage. Is that correct? No. Okay. I mean, that's correct. That's correct. We're not eliminating. I just wanted to double-check. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hobbs.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:02:27
Did you say Hobbs? Okay. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. I did. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to follow all this, so sorry. But isn't the reason that NWAC, part of its uniqueness, if I remember correctly, is because the voters within those two school boundaries supported a millage to specifically support NWAC. Is that not accurate? That is correct.
Okay. Okay, so it's really, because I know they support Washington, I mean, they don't limit where the students come from
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:10
to their campus. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Representative Schlenker, that has brought a, raised a question with me from Representative Nichols and Representative Klemmer and Representative Rogers. For me, if I may ask, as I understand, listening to the discussion here, the colleges, even
in Northwest Arkansas, has a millage-supported campus. Is that correct?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:03:41
Yes. The Northwest Arkansas Community College
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:44
does that. Most junior colleges, I understand, are required to have some sort of local millage support, and they're required at each year to give the voters the opportunity to vote for or against that millage. Is that?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:04:04
Not on community college, only on public schools, the annual schools. Junior colleges
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:04:08
do not have to vote on it
Speaker 219
1:04:11
every year? That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm confused. I want to get this straight. No, they do
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:04:20
not. Okay. So they only have to do it once. Then you answered my question. Thank
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:04:28
you. Representative Nichols is next. Representative Rogers. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. My concern, Representative Slinkert, is that sometimes community colleges do put forth millage
issues to their constituents or to the people in their district. And I'm afraid, the way this is worded, that if there's also a school board or a board election at the same time and only one candidate, that the unintended consequences could be that we're only going to be open through early voting and not have open on election day to vote on that millage. And a lot of times, millages are fairly contested types of elections.
So I would feel better if your bill was clarified to say you can do this unless there is a millage on the ballot and then you're going to be open on election day. That's just my thought. I'm just afraid of possible unintended consequences of this by some interpretation of a county election commission or something like that, because
you have specifically called for no
election day voting if the school board race only has one candidate. So that's my concern. I
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:05:52
understand, and I think the reason or the purpose of it was because NWAC is so different from other community colleges in that, but that is a good point about their millage. Of course, the community college district was created in 1989.
I was still county clerk then, but, and we did not address that at all in our discussions regarding this. This was to allow, there was a situation that happened where the community college was charged an enormous amount for election expenses on the same day as the annual school election because they only had one candidate on the ballot. And since 1989, of course, since their initial levy,
they have never asked for a millage increase or anything like that at the community college. I will visit with – my people aren't here, so I'll visit with them. and come back with an amendment if that would. Representative Snick, are you indicating you're willing to pull the bill down and
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:07:03
work on it? Is that what you're telling us? Well, I really don't, but could I get with it? I just want
Speaker 243
1:07:10
to make sure before we go any further,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:07:14
because I just want to make
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:07:17
sure where you're going with this. Okay. Well, could I get with Representative Nichols later, and we'll see
if we can't come up with something. But I would like to go ahead and get my bill
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:07:29
through today. If Representative Slankert will say that if it passes out of the House, she will have it amended on the Senate side, then that will get a positive vote from me.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:07:42
Without objection, we will continue on.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:07:45
Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But I also was going to suggest that Representative Slinkert add something like membership on local board and no other issue or something like that. We don't know what's going to happen down the future and how schools do change and morph into other types of entities. So I also would appreciate an amendment just adding that. Thank you.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:08:17
Okay. Thank you. I am in agreement with that.
Speaker 277
1:08:31
Representative Rogers. Representative Hopper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:08:36
time I raised my hand, I was trying to offer some clarification, and it
Speaker 236
1:08:40
may have just been for more confusion. But just as, I guess, a point of information, in my other life, I am an employee of, of course, a two-year institution.
We do not have a local board. We do have a local two mills, and it is not voted on annually. So I think part of the confusion around the table is that unlike K-12 school districts, two-year institutions kind of have their own makeup and personalities, and it's not an across-the-board makeup. And, again, I think that's what's kind of adding to the discussion, confusion. I don't know if that helped any, but that's what I was going to say, and I thank you.
Speaker 219
1:09:24
Yes, ma'am. Reverend Rogers, you're nodding there. I'm going to let you clarify
Speaker 198
1:09:30
on your position. That was my intent as well
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:09:33
when I raised my hand, and I appreciate Representative Hopper offering that clarification. But in addition to that also, there is – the millage is not a requirement for the local interest or the local support. And it's not – it's encouraged. It's appreciated when there's that local.
But, I mean, in Phillips Community College, we – in Arkansas County, we have a half-cent sales tax countywide that went to the, for the debt retirement on the building. So it's very different. It's very, it depends upon each community college, and I just think that needs to be clarified to everybody sitting around here that it's not, a millage is not required. It's not, it's appreciated, but it's not required. Well, I need to
Speaker 204
1:10:22
clarify that, if I may, since we're drifting off track.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:10:27
Yes, we are. Well, I represent the Phillips County, which Phillips College is the home campus. And when they originated that, the whole package was if we did not vote for the millage on the school and maintain it, the school and college was not open. Now, are you telling me that's not a requirement, that the Board of Registers, those who were pushing that, was misinforming the public? I just know how Arkansas County
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:10:58
works in regard to Phillips Community College.
I just want to make sure we're on the same page. But I just wanted you also to understand that there is a difference between the campuses and
Speaker 282
1:11:14
the colleges across the state as well. Okay. Thank you. Representative Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking on page two, line one, and the way I read this, is this loud? And the way I read this, it says that the local board, by resolution, may request.
Speaker 283
1:11:32
And I guess what I was wondering is if they make the request, it could possibly be denied. I mean, are there instances where the Election Commission would possibly honor the request or maybe deny the request? In your mind, I guess you wrote it so that the Election Commission may choose to not honor the
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:11:52
request. That is correct. And we tried to follow the same language as was for public schools for their annual elections. This is the same language that is there.
The board of any school district can request that the Election Commission open no polling places on Election Day. And yes, it's up to the county board. And so
Speaker 283
1:12:13
millage issue on the ballot, the Election Commission would probably have an obligation to open the polling places because of that millage, right? deny this request, is that? That would be correct. Okay. So this doesn't mandate anything. It just really just gives the Board the ability to make that request.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:12:34
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Lee. Motion do pass. We have several members on the committee that are already on the list. Do you want that at the proper time, or do you want to? That would be great. Thank you. Representative Garner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would draw my question.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:13:06
Representative Vines. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Slinker, I represent Garland County, where we have National Park Community College, and
we, too, have a millage, but it's not voted on annually. But we have a situation where we have three slots open every two years.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:13:29
What effect, if any, would this bill have on that? Actually, it should not have any effect on it, on any other community college, because if they're, if, I mean, they apparently are elected at the general election, your community
Board? Yes. And this has to do with that community college that is comprised of only a school district boundary. And so the Northwest Arkansas Community College
is within those school districts. That's what composes their district. Just a second.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:14:13
millage rate, then that's what we have agreed to, that we could amend this to.
But this bill only actually affects Northwest Arkansas Community College in Benton County for the election of their Board of Trustees. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Lee, do you have a motion? Yes, sir.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:14:40
Motion to pass. We have a motion to pass.
Is there anyone in the room who'd like to speak against this bill?
Speaker 293
1:14:52
Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm Jim Hall from Red Cross-Lock Community
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:00
College. I'd like to speak for the bill. Okay. Anyone
Speaker 295
1:15:08
like to speak for the bill? Your turn. Thank you very much. NWAC has a property tax district that's composed solely of the Bentonville and Rogers public school districts. We're the only community college in Arkansas that has a property tax that is composed of a taxing district that is composed of two public school districts.
We have a nine-member elected Board of Trustees. Six of the nine are apportioned to the Rogers School District and three to the Bentonville School District. That's based on the 2000 census. Three of the nine trustees' positions are up for election each even year. This past year, we had two unopposed positions, one each in Bentonville School District and one in the Rogers Public School District. This wasn't the first time that this has happened, just the latest.
What this meant was that for NWAC, had to go through the Election Commission, hire poll workers, had to rent two sites, a site in Rogers and a site in Bentonville, we had to pay for transporting ballots and all that for two unopposed positions. The expense to the community colleges was almost $5,000 for two unopposed races. This bill is designed to save the college money and simplify the process when just one
person runs for a position. Thank you.
Speaker 224
1:16:40
Would you accept questions from the committee? Certainly, Mr.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:16:50
Chairman. Representative Vines? The way this language is drafted in line 34, page 1, it talks about for elections held at the annual school election. Are you talking about September? Yes, sir. September.
No, sir. September. Should that language not read that instead of for elections but if elections? because, again, my two-year community college, we have those elections in November, and our concern is going to be that it's going to cost us, potentially cause us expense for this election, the way
Speaker 295
1:17:25
this language reads. I understand that Garland County Community College is a countywide school district. I mean, the taxing district is countywide within Garland County.
And as such, this precludes them from – their positions have to run in November, is what I understand. And that this bill will preclude that from them having to run in September. Don't you
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:17:51
need some language in that line to clarify that? I don't
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:17:58
know what it'd be. Well, it's my understanding if a paragraph, the current law says, however, if the election
for the community college board is held at the same time as the annual school election, and then we're in this b little i, then we're saying for those elections, maybe it should say for those elections held at
the annual school election. Solely. Solely. then maybe I could include that in my amendment on the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:18:33
Senate. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? I have one that really concerns me.
The essence of what you're trying to do is to save money. That's what we're looking at, is trying to save money. That's
on one hand. The other hand is the citizen's right to actually participate in the election process. That is a great concern for me when we start taking
or restricting the public's rights to vote. Would you not agree that by moving in this direction that you are moving away from an open, transparent of the public's right to participate in your direction of your campus?
I was referring to the President. Mr. Chairman, if we
Speaker 306
1:19:31
were allowed to have write-in candidates for our
Speaker 295
1:19:36
Board of Trustees, that would be a very good point. Yes, sir, you would be exactly right. But we're not allowed to have write-in candidates in our elections. So, you know, if one person files for this office and no one else files for it, I don't know that I don't know why that we would need to
Speaker 306
1:19:58
I see your point in trying to save money
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:02
and I concur trying to save money is good for the state but I really have an issue when you start talking about depriving a citizen his right to I don't like Clark Hall and I don't care if he is the only person running I want to go down and vote against him if we make a that citizen has that right to make that statement that I am, I do not like the direction of this college is going, I do not like that person, and when you really factor it all in, even though the
cost has a great impact to your college, the giving up of that basic principle of the United States government in the state of Arkansas that that person has given up his right to vote or his direction. It really disturbs me. And would you not agree that if we continue in that, that we may be going down a slippery slope
here in the future? I don't know that. Yes, sir.
Speaker 295
1:21:00
But I don't know that on our particular ballot there would be another place down there that says none of
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:06
the above. Well, I thank you for your comments. And I'll just return my comments also. We have a motion. Anyone in the room would like to speak against the bill anyone for the bill we
Speaker 219
1:21:24
have a motion on the for were you asking a question yes
Speaker 310
1:21:31
ma'am I was just trying to be recognized there I'd like to withdraw my
Speaker 204
1:21:37
motion I'd like to withdraw my motion
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:39
okay you certainly have a right to withdraw the motion I've just got to check with our staff or see if we have to vote on it. Or do we have to vote on it? We do not. You would draw on your motion. It's so noted. Thank you.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:21:55
Representative Roebuck. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Would Representative Slinkard be willing to pull this down so you can work with Representative Vines and Representative Nichols to work on the language and then bring it back to us? Yes, I'll do that.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:22:10
Is that your request? I'm requesting to pull
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:22:14
it down for amendments. Without objections, we're going to allow our colleagues to pull this bill down. Thank you. you. We're moving
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:22:40
going to go here. We have someone running
Speaker 204
1:22:45
1926? House Bill 2043. Is that the next one? 2043. Okay.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:23:03
We'll get back to House Bill 1498 after this presentation. Our representative is back in the room. Rep. Do you have the floor and Mike to discuss your bill.
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:23:16
MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee meetings, members.
I have with me Mr. Stu Stouffer from Jefferson County. He's going to help me along with this bill, so I'm going to defer to him to explain the bill. MR. Would you state
Stuart Stouffer
Unverified
1:23:34
your name and who you're with, sir? MR.
Speaker 319
1:23:37
My name is Stuart Stouffer. I am the Minority Party Election Commissioner for Jefferson County, and I apologize for my scratchy voice, Mr. Chair.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:23:47
All right. Welcome to date. Representative, you have the mic. You have the
Speaker 319
1:23:56
floor to explain your bill. During this past election cycle, we discovered within our state, while we regulate the placing of signs on highway right-of-way, There's nothing that regulates the placing of campaign signs other than 100 foot from the primary entrance of a polling site around polling sites. And we have a complaint from the First Assembly of God where they're used as a polling site,
and they designated an area in proximity to the voting location for campaign signs. but we had one particular campaign place campaign signs any place but and ensued in an altercation and then we got to checking on it there's a 1984 Attorney General opinion that says when you offer private property for public use then it is treated as public property on that particular day and what Representative Elliott was kind enough to do
to rectify this because we're about to lose some of our polling sites in Jefferson County, and I want to emphasize this is a statewide problem. Representative Elliott was kind enough to introduce legislation to just rectify this problem. What it says essentially is on election day there will be an area designated in proximity for campaign signs, and that's about it. And it's both reasonable and prudent, and I use those words in case there's any attorneys
on the committee so you think I know what I'm talking about. And I'll be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:25:45
happy, sir, to take any questions if I
may. Representative Pollard. I understand the addition of under line 25 you say where the owner of the private property shall do these following things, 1, 2, 3.
I certainly agree with lines 31 through 33. That's what the current law is that. Is that not correct? That is correct, ma'am. Yeah. My question is to Lines 27 and 28. Why is it necessary that the display of campaign signs shall be within reasonable proximity of the location of the polling site? Why is that necessary?
I think that's entirely unnecessary. You've already indicated that they should be no closer than
100 feet from the primary exterior entrance. And why would it be necessary on lines 29 and 30
that the signs be of sufficient size and location? All that's necessary from my perspective
is that they comply with the law, which is 100 feet. MR. What
Speaker 319
1:27:02
happens, ma'am, in the majority of cases when you have just a parking lot and
a polling site, it doesn't come into play. But this particular church, and several in Jepson County, and I'm sure in your counties, is rather large. And I think the simplest thing, if I may, Mr. Chair, let me just read briefly and quickly from this letter from the church. Sir, you cannot read
Speaker 213
1:27:29
the letter from the church unless they're here to take questions and answers. Sorry. My question
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:27:35
really is pretty simple, sir.
Even if the property is a big property of a church, and I can think of one in Fort Smith that that's true of, that's used and they're generous in their letting us use it for the elections on Election Day. I think that your lines 27 through 30 are entirely irrelevant relevant,
because the only thing necessary is that it not be located within 100 feet
of the primary exterior entrance used
by the voters. And if they so designate an area that meets that qualification, then it is really irrelevant what reasonable proximity means or what size of any of the signs
Speaker 136
1:28:36
that may be in that designated area. MR. If
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:28:42
I may, ma'am, it was really relevant to the
Speaker 319
1:28:47
folks that managed and administered
the church property was rather large property and the campaign signs were placed out of proximity to the voting location. The voting location, for the sake of our conversation, was over here, but they littered the landscape of the church property away from the polling site, away from the entrance, away from the parking lot with their campaign signs. And what this bill does is it complies with the law, complies with the First Amendment rights,
but it protects the right of private property owners. Let me ask
Speaker 178
1:29:25
you a question, sir. When that property, and if I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:29:30
understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, sir, that property for that day becomes public property because you're allowing it to be used for a public purpose. So as long as the signs meet the requirement of they must be no closer than 100 yards, then feet, I'm sorry.
I know in your case you probably want it to be yards. But as long as it meets that primary criteria of 100 feet, it really truly is irrelevant where else on your property or the church's property or whatever the entity is that's loaning the property for the day. It's really irrelevant what size those signs are. Now, do I understand your concern about your property or the entity's property being littered with campaign signs? Yes, I certainly do.
But there is no, unless I'm on the, and I don't understand something about election laws, which is probably could be true, it meets the criteria. They're 100 feet from the front door where people
Speaker 324
1:30:39
enter. It's within the law. Wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 326
1:30:45
Yes or no, ma'am. Did you want to respond? Let
Speaker 319
1:30:52
me just use an analogy, if I may.
Say this side of the state capitol is where the polling site is. Putting signs on the other side of the state capitol or private property is what occurred. And... Which is legal. Well, it's private. Yes, ma'am. But you see, when they offer up their private property for use as a polling site on Election They are just offering up a particular portion of their private property, and therein lies the problem.
I spoke to these folks yesterday, and I explained that Representative Elliott had introduced legislation, and he said to me, am I permitted to quote a conversation? He said to me, well, then we'll hold our board action. And they were about to withdraw as a polling site in our county, waiting until this was resolved. While it may seem to you to be, yes, they're within their
Speaker 326
1:31:56
rights, 100 foot, but it takes the whole property.
A.J., did you want to jump in here? Well,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:32:08
sir, sir, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm not insensitive to the concern of the
property that has all of those campaign signs on it. But if the entity does allow that property to be used, you know,
I don't see how you
can hold them there within the law. Representative, am I missing something? Are they within the law
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:32:38
or not? MR. You're correct, Representative. I have someone from the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Chair, would you? MS. Well, I might have, when they come up to speak for or
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:32:47
against your bill, I might have a question for them. MR. Yes, ma'am. MS. Whether
they're within the law or not. But do you feel they're within the law if they meet that 100-foot designation? MR. Yes, ma'am. I do. MS.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:33:02
Okay. That's all I needed. Thank you. Sir, I have a follow-up question, if I may, because I'm right north of the area in which you're discussing. In your bill, in the bill, do you know the current law of the definition of the primary exterior? Because it's been
Speaker 144
1:33:29
interpreted in past at the driveway.
we're asking if you know yes sir I do it is and I
Speaker 319
1:33:36
can take out the book and read it to you sir but what it says is the primary entrance exterior entrance of a polling site it talks about the front door that folks go in and out of and I have an associate here handing me the thing if you'd like sir I can read it to you real quick if it's part of the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:33:56
state statutes you may read it yes sir it is we identify the statue for the rest of
us may want to look it up also yes sir
Speaker 329
1:34:09
if I may have a moment please uh let's see Susan what chapter I have
Speaker 337
1:34:26
it highlighted here This is what I'm looking for. Yeah. No.
Speaker 319
1:34:45
What? 7-1-1. okay if I may sir I'm quoting from the Arkansas code annotated 7-1-103 if you have the book it's on page 49 I'll give you the sub here in a second the sub looks to be bowlegged A
bowlegged 9 large B and C or actually 9A might be a little closer so it would be A 9A may I read sir yes sir no person shall hand out or distribute or offer to hand out or distribute any campaign literature or any literature regarding any candidate or issue on the ballot, solicit signatures on a petition, solicit contributions for any charitable or
other purpose, or do any electioneering of any kind whatsoever in the building or within 100 feet of the primary exterior entrance used by voters to the building containing the polling place on election day. Thank you. That helps clarify
Speaker 204
1:36:14
where you're going. Let me ask you another question before we
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:36:19
go on to the other representatives. Does this polling site, are they paid a
Speaker 144
1:36:24
rent for the use of that facility during that day?
Speaker 319
1:36:30
I believe they're paid a stupid of $25 cleaning expense. It depends on the election. If it's a primary or a general, I believe the State Board of Election Commission reimburses a stupid. It's a cleaning fee. They're not paid rental. They're paid a cleaning fee, sir. Thank you. Representative Wilkins?
Speaker 21
1:36:55
Sir, if I understand this right, they are allowed to have campaign literature
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:37:01
no closer than 100 feet from the entrance of the voting place, right? But do they have to allow? I don't see why they would even have to allow campaign literature on the property
Speaker 319
1:37:17
if they didn't want to. It's a 1984 Attorney General opinion. I'm not an attorney, but it's a First Amendment issue. The Attorney General opinion, if I may, stem from a petition, a signature petition gathering on public property.
In talking to DLR on this thing, the attorney over there indicated it was a First Amendment freedom of speech issue. You know, campaign signs and campaign literature and campaigning is part of the tradition of Election Day and adds to the overall ambiance and excitement, and this bill, as written, does not preclude that, but all it asks is that they limit the activity and the proximity of where the voting is going on
as opposed to other places on the property where perhaps, in the case of a church, There might be a service. There
Speaker 21
1:38:16
like that. But now, on your private property, away from this polling place, and the church is private
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:38:21
property, why do you have to allow a campaign? Why is this an issue? I think you've just got to have someone pick
Speaker 319
1:38:30
up your signs. No, sir. The law does not, at this particular time, the law does not address that.
and as the law there's no law in the code other than state highway right away and what this does is it inserts a provision in the law to protect private property
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:38:47
owners then I'm misreading line 31 where it says not to be located within 100 feet it don't say they have to be located at all well if I may sir that was inserted by
Speaker 319
1:39:04
the attorney to make sure it stays in compliance with the other provision of the code.
What it says is they can put campaign signs up, but they still have to comply with the provision of the code that I just read that says they cannot
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:39:23
be within 100 foot. Well, see, I'm still not understanding because we've got a piece of property right across the road from a polling place, and I certainly control who puts signs on that. There's no freedom of state issue there.
Speaker 319
1:39:37
MR. No, sir, because the polling site is not on your property.
A polling site on election day, a private property polling site is treated the same as public property for
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:40:04
those 12 hours of the election. MR. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the intent of this bill, but I also recognize some severe deficiencies in
accomplishing what you're trying to do. So I've got first I've got a question about clarification, and I hope we'll be very brief on this because I've got a follow-up question I think is more important. The first is, on line 27, you say, be within reasonable proximity of the location of the polling site.
Speaker 326
1:40:40
Who makes that determination? I would say that it would be
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:40:44
the property owner. So the property owner is going to decide the location of free speech within the private
property when this private property offers itself up as a polling location to be public property. So now it's public property, but the private property owner is going to determine reasonable proximity to location of the polling site, visibility. The private property owner is going to say, even though they are for that amount of time a public, under public law, where people can exercise their free speech rights.
Speaker 348
1:41:24
I have, I mean, would you not agree there's a real constitutional question there? I don't know. Okay, that's fine. Let
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:41:37
me go on to the next one because what I see the intent of is, is this what's happening? A church is offering itself up to be a polling site, and there's very few places that are willing to do that, and that is a very necessary function for the efficiency of an election.
However, on election day, people show up, campaigns show up, and trash the private property all around the church and create a huge mess. Is that the problem that you're trying to solve with this legislation?
Speaker 319
1:42:09
No, sir. They don't trash it, but what they do is they put signs up out of proximity to the polling site on
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:42:17
the other side of the ground. Well, what's the problem with those signs being other places?
Speaker 319
1:42:25
Is it that it's trash? Well, the private property owner believed it distracted from the ambience of a religious site. For 12 hours, you're a public site. Right. It's their property, and it's a private property. You know, they offer up their property for public use. Right. Polling sites are hard enough to get. Yes, sir. You know, we just finished getting all but
Speaker 329
1:42:51
one out of a school in our county in the last seven years.
And what it does is it just stems to property owner rights. They want to do the right thing. They don't mind the signs in the area where the voting is, but they don't want the signs on the other
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:43:10
side of their property. So maybe my line of questioning, I misunderstood. I thought that maybe the campaigns or their workers or volunteers were abusing your site by putting signs up everywhere, and then after the election they're walking off and leaving signs and leaving it for the church people to have to clean up and just creating a mess.
Are you saying that that is not really a part of your legislation? You're not solving that?
Speaker 329
1:43:36
In some cases, they do leave the signs, but our definition of a mess perhaps differs. And that's where the local ordinances kick in that require the removal of signs. In this particular case, any signs left
Speaker 319
1:43:49
behind in the area around the voting, they don't mind going out and picking them
Speaker 348
1:43:54
up. Well, that's where I was going. I was wondering if there was some
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:44:00
gap that we had in there because my understanding was that signs are property of the campaign,
and once this is now not a public use anymore, it reverts to private property after the election, and there are consequences to leaving your property on someone else's property, that campaign better come get their signs. But what you're saying is that you're viewing just the location of signs around the facility as a nuisance for the time that that church
is a polling place.
And that is the focus of your
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:44:39
legislation. No, I think we're saying both things, that we're having some issues with both of them. And we're just trying to address it so that we can keep our polling places decent and in
Speaker 352
1:44:53
order. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Tyler. Thank you,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:45:04
Mr. Chair. Sir, thank you for coming forward today.
I know it's sometimes coming to this table
is a daunting thing, so I appreciate you doing that. I have two questions, if I may. Just one is a clarification. The second point on line 29 has to do with the area that's designated that has to be a sufficient size. Is that correct? Not the signs have to be of a certain size, but the area that's designated has to be of a sufficient size. That's correct. All right. The second question I have, if I may, Mr. Chair, is, Representative Elliott,
have you asked the Attorney General's Office, I understand we really need to get polling places, and I understand where these churches are coming from, but I also believe we need to make sure that we are honoring our free speech rights. Have you had a chance to talk with the Attorney General's Office about this? Do we have anybody here from the Attorney General's Office who might speak to this?
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:46:06
No, we don't. And I haven't asked for an opinion yet.
Speaker 353
1:46:11
Mr. Chair, may I make a suggestion? Yes, ma'am.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:46:22
To me or to the representative? Representative Elliott. Okay.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:46:29
Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Representative Elliott. Bill, if we feel real comfortable with it, do you think you'd be willing to pull it down until we can get an attorney general, someone from the attorney general's office to speak to this committee about the free speech rights that this might or might not abridge?
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:46:45
Yes, ma'am. Representative Tyler, I will most definitely do that.
Speaker 278
1:46:50
Representative, are you requesting to pull your bill
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:46:54
down? Yes, sir, I am. Without objections, we'll let our colleagues do that. Thank you, sir. We're going back up on the top of the agenda now, House Bill 1498. I understand there's some out-of-area
Speaker 359
1:47:09
witnesses. No? Which one? I'm sorry.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:47:15
I got the wrong number here. It's
Speaker 204
1:47:24
2093. 2093. Ah, I'm on the third page down, I'm sorry, 2093. Mr. Shepard, you are at
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:47:35
the end of the table to frame your bill. This is House Bill 2093. Thank
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:47:44
you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
It's certainly my pleasure to be back before you today. I have with me my good friend and the prosecuting attorney from the 13th Judicial District, which covers my district and my hometown of Eldorado, Robin Carroll, and he will have a few comments if the chair allows in just a few moments. I am here today presenting House Bill 2093, which would amend Arkansas law to provide that prosecuting attorneys would be elected on a nonpartisan basis.
I believe this is a bill that this is the right time for us to make this change. I think there are three overriding reasons that justify making this change. One, prosecuting attorneys, unlike legislators, are not policymakers. Their task is to enforce the law. And therefore, it appears that the party label is not necessarily helpful with regard to the type of job
that that prosecuting attorney or potential prosecutor might do. Secondly, I myself am an attorney. I'm obviously very concerned about the way that the courts, the criminal justice system, and the administration of justice is viewed. And I think that this bill is a step in the right direction. It eliminates one other potential issue from those who are critical of our criminal justice system. In other words, it takes that partisan label out of the equation.
And then third, it provides our prosecuting attorneys insulation from the political winds that may blow either to the left or to the right, particularly at the national level. and it allows prosecuting attorneys to focus on their job without regard to some of the overriding political concerns that really, in the course of their job, are of no concern. Unlike judges, judges have the judicial canon of ethics that concern their ability to participate in partisan politics.
This bill simply eliminates the partisan label from the elections. Prosecutors are not bound by the judicial canons, and therefore they still would have the ability to be active within their political party if they so choose. I believe it's a good bill. As I said with another bill I presented, I think its time has come, and I would appreciate a good vote. And with the Chair's permission, I would ask that Mr. Carroll be allowed to make just a few comments.
Speaker 253
1:50:42
If you'd state your name and who you're with, sir,
Speaker 362
1:50:46
for the record. Robin Carroll, prosecuting attorney, 13th Judicial District. I live in Union
Speaker 224
1:50:50
County. Yes, sir. You have a statement
Speaker 362
1:50:53
to make? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that on behalf of the Arkansas Prosecutors Association, we overwhelmingly voted to support this bill in December. We put it out again to our membership because we do have some new prosecutors, and the vote count as of this morning is 14 to 1 in favor of this bill. From a personal standpoint, I can agree with everything that Representative Shepard said
about what this bill would do, and I've always felt as a prosecutor there's no Republican or Democratic way to prosecute crimes. There's just a right way, and politics has absolutely nothing to do with our jobs and the perception that politics could ever play a role in our decision-making, that perception should never exist. As Representative Shepard said, this debate has gone on for a long time. I was legal counsel for the Democratic Party of Arkansas for seven years,
and I was in those debates and discussions about whether judges and prosecutors should be nonpartisan, and I have always taken the stand for the last probably 15 years that judges and prosecutors should be nonpartisan. Thank you for your time. Are you all
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:52:03
willing to accept questions for the committee? Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Are there any? Rep. Mr. Thiel? Thank you,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:52:11
Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a brief question.
I would imagine a campaign for prosecutors, just like a campaign for any other office, costs a great deal of money, does it not? Yes. And in that fundraising process, we know in legislative races, obviously, party plays a key role in the fundraising process. Could you tell us a little bit how it's different, running for prosecutor, and how the fundraising
Speaker 362
1:52:38
works in that kind of race? Well, as I stated before, you know, party politics shouldn't have anything to do with a prosecutor's race. There are no partisan issues that come up when you're running for prosecutor.
They're just public safety issues, how you're going to handle the office, how you have handled the office if you're an incumbent. But those party issues that are defined on the state, local, and national level, they simply just don't apply to us as prosecutors. So you probably received funds equally
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:53:06
from Republicans and Democrats throughout your campaign. Is that fair to say? That is correct. Okay. And what is the – I'm sorry, if I might want more, Mr. Chairman.
What is the filing fee for running for prosecuting attorney?
Speaker 372
1:53:22
The Democratic filing fee is $7,500. Do you
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:53:25
know what the filing fee for Independent or Green Party or Republican Party would be? I
Speaker 362
1:53:32
think it's $2,500 or $3,500 for the Republican Party. Under the bill, if we were treated as circuit judges are treated at 4% of salary, our filing fee would be $5,000,
Speaker 374
1:53:41
which would go into the state fund. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:53:49
Thank you. Reverend Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my question is similar. Does this bill set the filing fees for, should this pass, does it set the filing fees for nonpartisan
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:54:06
prosecuting attorney races? This bill does not. It provides a mechanism, and I believe that is on page 5, line 4. There are actually two options. One, a prospective candidate could pay the filing fee, and I believe the relevant language is lines 4 and 5 of page 5,
that the State Board of Election Commissioners shall establish reasonable filing fees for nonpartisan offices. And this language, essentially we are deleting the qualification of judicial. So the language, the prosecutors will fall under the same provisions that our judges now fall under. The alternative means of filing is by gathering signatures on a petition. And I believe that is found on page 6.
And I believe it's 3% or no more than 2,000 signatures. So there's two means, and I failed to mention that in my introductory comments, that this bill essentially places prosecutors under the same procedural requirements that our judges now operate. And my second half of my question
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:55:25
is a follow-up on that. You talked about how the filing fees would be established on page 5, line 17.
Those fees would be deposited, well, beginning with line 15, there's created on the books of the Treasurer's State, Officer of State, Chief Fiscal Officer of State, a fund to be known as the Judicial Filing Fee Fund. Are you – this is probably technical. Do you have any – is there any problem with the prosecuting attorney's fees going into the Judicial Filing Fee Fund? and should that also be the nonpartisan filing fee fund?
I mean, I'm probably being picky here, but, you know, sometimes you lawyers find those things and pick them to death. So I just wondered about that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:56:21
That's a very good question. In earlier
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:56:24
drafts of the bill, as I was preparing this bill, we had eliminated the term judicial filing fee fund. The Bureau advised me that they were concerned that in eliminating and changing the title,
that that could inadvertently create problems with respect to the receipt and disbursement of funds. And the Bureau's advice to me, their legal advice to me, would be to leave the fund titled as it is to avoid any potential unintended consequence of creating a situation where either funds couldn't be received and deposited or funds could not be dispersed properly. And so they have – that's the reason why the fund was – the name of the fund was left in that – titled as such.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:57:18
How – those funds – what happens with those funds? In terms of disbursement, once we put prosecuting attorney's fees into the judicial filing fee fund, it's disbursed to cover the
cost of elections. Is there any barrier to those funds then being able to use to cover the cost of prosecuting attorney elections? I'm not aware of
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:57:44
any restriction. And beyond what is laid out in the statute as is, I'm unsure as to what other uses those funds may be put to.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:57:56
But it would allow for the use that you intend, which is to cover the prosecuting attorney's races. That's certainly
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:58:03
my belief, and it refers in, I think, lines 18, 19, and 20 of
page 5 that the filing fees should be remitted to the Treasurer for depositing into the fund for covering the cost of election expenses of the board, which I believe refers back to the State Board of Election Commissioners. All right. Thank
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:58:24
you. I think you've covered that base.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:58:27
Representative Bernard. I was going to say good morning, but it's almost noon, Representative Shepard. My
question is on line 20, where you talk about you delete the word state. Why
the deletion of that word? Is that page five?
Page five, I'm sorry, on the same page, line 20. Why the deletion
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:59:05
of the word state? MR. I believe that was just some cleanup language that the Bureau had made, and that's my understanding of why it was deleted. It was not something that I specifically
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:59:23
requested. MS. By the deletion of that within that subsection , then in your opinion, does
Does it apply back to the line 4
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:59:37
because it's in that subsection? That would be my opinion because as you have noted in line 4, B1, this qualification falls under B1, this is B3B,
and so it falls under that.
I believe that that's what that it would be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:00:08
clear as to that. Now, just so that I can understand clearly, and I thought I heard this,
but what was The association that was indicated was in favor or had endorsed this bill, what was that association?
The Arkansas Prosecutors' Association. The Arkansas Prosecutors' Association, and that membership is how large? Twenty-eight.
Speaker 362
2:00:34
There are twenty-eight judicial districts and
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:00:37
twenty-eight prosecutors. And out of those twenty-eight, how many actually indicated there yes to this bill?
Speaker 362
2:00:43
Between 8 o'clock this morning and now 14 have responded, or excuse me, 15 have responded and 14 responded affirmatively. And why do you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:00:53
say it in those terms? How is it that only between this morning and now that they responded yes? I mean, when did those prosecuting attorneys receive this bill?
Speaker 374
2:01:06
Representative Shepard filed it Monday when we took legislative matters up in December our meeting. I believe the vote was 23 to 1. MS. In other words, the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:01:17
idea of this bill, not the bill itself, but the idea of this bill was discussed last year at y'all's association meeting? MR. Representative, we
Speaker 362
2:01:26
looked at Representative Lee's bill from last time, and it's substantially the same in its current draft form. MS.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:01:37
Okay. Do you know, Representative Shepard or Sir, do you all
know of any, have you received any other
endorsements of this bill from any other entity? Not to my knowledge.
Have you received any, because of the shortness of the bill, of course, if it was just filed Monday, are we to assume that you receive no non-support of the bill?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:02:15
to the bill. Representative Shepard, how about you? I'm not aware of any organized opposition to it. I mean, I've
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:02:20
not heard from anyone who... They wouldn't have had too much time to organize any opposition to it if it was just filed Monday, but certainly, based on your awareness, though, you haven't received any negative Do you have e-mails or comments about it? I have not. Nor
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:02:37
have I. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Shlaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Shepard, on page 5 you talk about the filing periods. Do you know if that will coincide or be comfortable with the Secretary of State's regarding the deadline dates about the filing times? I guess I don't know for
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:03:07
certain from their perspective, although this is the language already in effect with regard to judicial candidates,
and so therefore prosecutors would fall under the same schedule as is now in place with regard to judges in which I guess for the past however many years the Secretary
of State's office has been able to meet those
Speaker 217
2:03:36
deadlines. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:03:40
a couple quick questions, and then we have three or four more on the list. If you would turn to page three, line 32.
We'll start at line 32. We're going to really start at line 35. The nonpartisan judicial office means justice of the Supreme Court, justice of the Court of Appeals, circuit judges, and district judges. My concern is, or my question has to become, judges, as I understand their role in the judiciary system, is to render an unbiased ruling on the cases presented to them by the attorneys, whether it's civil or criminal.
whereas prosecuting attorneys, as I relate to them, has a whole
different concept in what they do in the justice system of our state. They're there to render the decision whether or not to prosecute. And
my concern about the whole program here is that we are blending
or mixing different entities
and different missions and different responsibilities to a system and giving the prosecuted attorneys that association with the justice system, as I understand it, or I relate to it. So I have a really concern about allowing the prosecuting attorneys to rise that. And I'm going to go on,
if I may, if the committee doesn't stop me.
But as I understand the Arkansas law, and
I'm not an attorney, but the prosecutors of this state, the 28 prosecutors, have a tremendous amount of latitude,
not only in the prosecution of a case, but also in the decision of whether or
not to prosecute. Prosecutor attorneys in areas that I'm familiar with certainly has the connotation of more influence and
control over the day-to-day lives of the citizens of this state.
So I'm really having a hard time moving the prosecutor's attorney labeling to a nonpartisan judiciary labeling. And can you help explain to me why the prosecutors who have so much constitutional authority right now, more so than any other one single entity in the state of Arkansas,
How are we – why should we, as a people, want to move this out into a nonpartisan position in which, as we all understand and we've seen it happen time and time again, when you have nonpartisan elections, the intensity is not as direct to the voters. So, I mean, I'm having a – I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm really having a hard time taking the hook.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:07:27
Can you help me on this? Sure. And I certainly appreciate the chairman's concerns.
With regard to the first issue you raised in having some concerns with incorporating prosecuting attorneys with statutory provisions that govern judges, I would just say that the reason why we have grouped them with judicial candidates in this context is to provide some consistency in the process, and that this largely speaks to the procedure for filing and the operation of elections themselves.
And therefore, in my view, to assure that there's consistency, we have just tried to incorporate that into what is already in place as opposed to developing a completely new section just as to prosecutors. And so I would emphasize that this is largely procedural in this context. With regard to, and if it's all right, I'll let Mr. Carroll maybe shed some light as to the decisions prosecutors make in day-to-day business
and why we still believe this is a good idea, let me come to the final point that you raised, the intensity of nonpartisan elections. The nonpartisan elections that I'm most familiar with, and I understand that there may be mayors who are elected on a nonpartisan basis. In my hometown of El Dorado, all of our elections are partisan with the exception of judicial candidates. So my familiarity with nonpartisan elections relates to judicial candidates.
And I agree that there can be a lack of intensity with regard to judicial elections. And in large part, that is due to what I mentioned earlier. I believe it's correctly referred to as the judicial canon of ethics in that judges and potential judicial candidates cannot speak to issues that may come before the court. And so you have elections where, in many cases, the candidates cannot distinguish their views on issues.
They can merely point out their background versus their opponent's background. And I think that that lends itself to the lack of intensity that you speak of. And certainly I can appreciate that. I think in this context, with regard to prosecuting attorneys, there can be vigorous debate and intense debate as to the view of the role of the office, the prosecuting of crimes, an individual's background and experience,
and they will not be hampered by some of the constraints that I believe rightly are in place with regard to judges. but in this context will not be in place, and therefore you can have the same type of debate. And, again, in some ways, I think it comes back to the idea of in the course of that debate, you're allowing the prosecutor to stand on their own merits and in some ways giving them insulation from what may be going on in Washington, D.C.
or Little Rock or anywhere else, and that they can stand
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:10:48
on their own merit. I appreciate that, but I'm not interested in Washington, D.C. I'm interested in Arkansas. And I'm going to say this, and I may be off-face it. If I went back to my district and I asked 100 people, would they rather have a nonpartisan prosecuting attorney election or would they like to vote for them, I will assure you, I will bet money today that 99 would rather have the election because of the importance of how that prosecuting attorney plays in the day-to-day lives of our cities
and our counties and the administrating of the indicting of the criminals and those who prey upon the citizens of our area. So I'm getting off base here, but I'm just telling you, I understand
where you're coming from. I appreciate what the prosecuting attorneys do, but I really have a serious
issue with moving them out of the direct responsibility to the voters. And with that, we have several more people.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:11:54
If you were a representative, Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carroll,
and Representative Shepard. Also, part of my life I teach at UALR. And we deal with, in the class,
with judicial systems, those that appoint, those that elect, those that run partisan. And a normal class size might be 45 students.
And I will ask the students, can you tell me the name of the last judge you voted for? And I know they're young people, and young people don't turn out and vote the way they should. I think the last figure I saw was about 18% turnout, but it has amazed me that the number that have absolutely no idea, even if they voted, who the judge was they voted on.
And then I mentioned Amendment 80 that made it nonpartisan for the judicial officers and and explain, you know, how the judges are elected. And then I asked, would it help you make a decision on who you wanted to vote for if you knew they were Republican or Democrat? And the vast majority of the students say, yes, we would like to know that because right or wrong, that tells them something about that candidate that they want to know.
And so that's why I have a – it's just another piece of information that the voter would know about a candidate. And so that is what leads me to probably vote against the amendment because I think it's – or the bill, because I think the more information the electorate has about candidates, the better our democracy is. Would you agree with that, either one of you? I would certainly
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:14:04
agree that the more information they
have, the better and more informed decision they can make.
And, again, this bill would not eliminate a candidate's ability to hold themselves out as a Republican or Democrat. It would strictly provide the process and procedure. There would be no distinction when it comes
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
2:14:43
appreciate your comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Shepard, I think by looking at who gave to the candidates, you could probably tell which party they were aligned with. But if we pass this bill and next term the sheriffs want to be nonpartisan, how would we tell them, no,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:15:09
this can't apply to you? That's a good question, and I'm not sure. I mean, my focus is as to the prosecuting attorneys and that I think, you know, as an attorney, I'm concerned about the way our justice system is viewed.
Again, I think that it comes back to this idea of just eliminating something that people can bring up in a kind of a cynical manner with regard to what our prosecutors do. But, you know, I can't speak to what we would say to a sheriff or any other person. I just think with regard to prosecutors and their unique role in enforcing our laws and prosecuting cases that we should select those on a nonpartisan basis.
Speaker 297
2:16:06
Representative McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to kind of talk a little bit about Representative Pernarts, kind of go back to what she was talking about in terms of the thoughtful discussions apparently that your group has had, and I'm basing this upon a conversation I had half an hour ago with my prosecutor who enthusiastically supports this. So would that be a fair characterization that there is widespread support in your organization?
You've thought about this a long time, and this is something
Speaker 362
2:16:41
you all want to do. Yes, Representative, I'd say it's almost unanimous as far as the group goes. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 112
2:16:53
Chairman. Representative Penelope. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to yield to any other member that hasn't had the opportunity to ask a question yet. Representative
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:17:05
Slinker has not asked. I yield. Thank you. Representative Slinker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I noticed on page 5, Representative Shepard, where the State Board of Election Commissioners, of course, pay the expenses of the primary election on which at the same time is our non-political judicial offices are being elected in their primary at that same time. But under line 17, created on the books, is called the Judicial Filing Fee Fund that It has been created on the books where the State Board of Election Commissioners pays
out those expenses of the election. And then my next question would be then why was the name State removed from line 20? And I guess I just need to know if the State Board of Election Commissioners have
seen this bill and know of these situations. Thank you, Representative
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:18:05
Slinkard. With regard to the name of the Judicial Filing Fee Fund, that was – we left that name as is based on advice from the Bureau.
Their concern was that in renaming a fund that there could be an inadvertent consequence in that either not being able to accept certain funds or not being able to distribute certain funds. And so their advice to me was to leave the fund titled the Judicial Filing Fee Fund. With regard to striking state from the qualification of board, that, again, was something that the Bureau suggested as essentially cleanup language.
I believe it refers back to the State Board of Election Commissioners. And then finally, I have not discussed this with the State Board of Election Commissioners, and I don't know what their position would be on this. Okay. Thank you. Thank
Stuart Stouffer
Unverified
2:19:07
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bernardi, are you back?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:19:12
Yes, I am, sir. I had to get up and stretch. I was getting stiff here since it's almost 1230.
And I wasn't talking about my stomach being stiff, although. So, Representative, I, two or three questions here, and I think Representative Slinker's question sort of answered one of them in the sense that this is considered to be a nonpartisan, it would be considered to be a nonpartisan election and that would be paid for by the Secretary of State's office.
Is that correct? Or would the county be responsible for cost on nonpartisan elections? Representative, I can answer
Speaker 371
2:20:03
that as not only as prosecutor and having to represent the
Speaker 362
2:20:09
county Board of Election Commissioners, but being counsel of the Democratic Party. It would be a state expense, and there would be no additional expense to the state, you You know, if we were Democrat or Republicans or running as partisans.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:20:22
Well, I don't know what you mean by no additional expense. Are you indicating that
the elections are paid for by the state and regardless of what party a candidate belongs to, those elections are paid for by the state by general revenue? Is that your statement? Correct.
Speaker 404
2:20:45
In 94, when the state began to pay for
Speaker 362
2:20:49
the primaries, prior to 94, the parties paid for
the primaries, and since 94, the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:20:56
state has paid for them. Okay. Representative Shepard, thank you, sir. Representative Shepard, by your premise with regard to this office being nonpartisan, by By extension, couldn't your premise also be extended to a county
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:21:24
County judge. I'm not sure because it's my understanding that the county judge does make some decisions with regard to the policies of the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:21:37
county. Well, there are policies about how to run a corporation basically, which is the county, which is roads, which is other things, maintenance of highways, other types of issues in the county. How about a county clerk?
Probably so. County clerk deals with just papers in the office and move around. Probably so. County treasurer. Probably so. They're
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:22:04
just, as you said, they're just administering the office. So my question
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:22:08
to you is, even though you have a particular interest in this one, because as I understand it, did you indicate to us, sir, and I apologize for not already knowing the answer to this question, I know you're a lawyer, sir, and a very good one. Do you practice civil or criminal law?
Both. So this, and I understand that you may have had some closeness to this issue that because of the way you practice law, that, sir, I would have been more for this bill if you had come here and said that county sheriffs, county clerks, county treasurers, county, you know, judges, prosecuting attorneys, your rationale applies to all of those equally.
And so the weakness of your bill is that it doesn't include all of those by your premise, primary premise. Would
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:23:09
you not agree? MR. I agree that my premise could extend to all those offices, and I guess my idea in limiting to just the prosecuting attorney is the critical role of the Administration of Justice, and that's why I focused on that. But I certainly understand and agree with your comments.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:23:27
MR. Well, I appreciate that, and I would say to you that I'm sure a sheriff feels
that his or her role is critical to the administration of justice. I think I had a further question, but I'm getting faint from hunger,
so Mr. Chair, thank you, and gentlemen, thank you. We have three more, and we're going to hear those
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:23:51
three, and then we're going to, if Mr. Cheatham's back, he's asked for a motion, but we will bow to the next one on the list. Rep. Schlenker, you have the question.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:24:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One more question. I'm getting hungry, too. But Representative Shepard, back to the State Board of Election Commissioners, they do pay the expenses of the preferential primary election, which also includes the nonpartisan election. Do you know of any statistics out there about how many of those candidates actually pay filing fees versus a petition. If these funds, if these filing fees are going into the State Board of Election Commissioners
to pay for these elections, how many of those candidates now are filing by petition rather than paying the filing
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:24:49
fee? Representative Slinkert, I'm not sure. I mean, I can only speak anecdotally from my experience
in Union County in the 13th Judicial District. I believe most of our circuit judges, maybe all of them, have filed by petition, by circulating a petition for filing. And beyond that, I'm not sure.
I believe at the state level there was one appellate candidate that filed by petition that I'm aware of, but I couldn't speak as to any exact
Speaker 306
2:25:25
numbers. We have Representative Tyler. This should be
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
2:25:30
quick. Judicial candidates, when there's a runoff, their runoff is in the general election, right? That's correct. So would this be the same if there's a runoff for the prosecuting attorney, it would be in the general election? That is correct.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:25:46
If there was, say, the need for runoff, it would be at the November general election.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
2:25:51
That's a long time to go, but thank
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:26:01
Chairman. Mr. Shepard, is it your understanding that the goal in making judges nonpartisan was to have an independent, non-biased judiciary? That's my understanding.
And in your opinion, do prosecutors play a more integral role in the judiciary than, say, sheriffs?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
2:26:24
You know, I think everybody has a role to play. I'm not sure that one is more important than the other because if you don't have sheriffs or law enforcement, then you don't have prosecutors who
have the ability to prosecute criminals. So I think that each of them plays an important
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:26:41
role. But I would ask Mr. Carroll, I imagine you go to circuit court every time
Speaker 362
2:26:50
Well, I can't say that I go. I have six counties, so I can't be there every time the doors open. But I can say that a prosecutor has a quasi-power as not only judiciary but also an executive,
and I think that's what distinguishes us from sheriffs. We do play a role in the judiciary, and we do play a role as executives. and to remove the partisan taint from the decisions that we make, which at that point was made very well by the chairman, we do have a great deal of latitude and discretion in what we do. And what this would do is remove any
Speaker 411
2:27:24
taint that partisan politics have played any role in our decisions. Okay, and one more
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:27:30
question. Mr. Shepard, are you aware of the Sheriff's Association or the County Clerk's Association
or any other association attempting to become nonpartisan as the prosecutors have. I'm not aware of any.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:27:49
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you through, Representative Steele? Representative Hutchinson? We have a motion due pass. Representative Cowley, did you have a motion? Well, I need that right now if you want to do that. we have a motion
for immediate consideration that's non-debatable all in favor say aye all opposed, any opposed motion carried we have a all in favor of the motion sir you got on the list after we had cut it off Representative Vines because we had The way it
goes, next time may be better.
We have a motion to do pass on House Bill 2093. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Speaker 416
2:28:54
No. Let's roll call this sucker. Representative Cheatham? Representative Cheatham? Representative Gardner? Representative Gardner? Aye. Representative Robeck? No.
Representative Hutchinson? Yes. Representative Kalling? Representative Kalling? Representative Pernartz? No. Representative Baird? Yes. Representative Hobbs? Yes. Representative Lee? Yes. Representative Wilkins? Yes. Welcome, Representative Tyler, Representative Harper, Representative Klemmer, Representative
Nichols, Representative McLean, Representative Rogers, Representative Rodgers, Representative Representative Steele? Yes. Representative Vines? Yes. Representative Slinkard? Representative Slinkard? Representative Slinkard? Representative Hall? No. Representative Shepard, your
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:30:13
bill failed due to a lack of enough votes.
Speaker 112
2:30:18
Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair motion to adjourn. We have
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:30:22
a motion adjourned. All in favor say aye. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB354
HB1909
HB1827
HB1446
HB1602
HB1889
HB2043
HB2093
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Lucinda Mcdaniel
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 22
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 36
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 68
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Speaker 86
Speaker 92
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 109
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 118
Speaker 121
Speaker 126
Speaker 132
Speaker 136
Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 79
Speaker 150
Speaker 147
Speaker 151
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 152
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 174
Speaker 177
Speaker 180
Speaker 12
Speaker 190
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 204
Speaker 209
Speaker 210
Speaker 171
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 213
Speaker 216
Speaker 217
Speaker 219
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 242
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 243
Speaker 277
Speaker 236
Speaker 282
Speaker 283
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 293
Speaker 295
Speaker 224
Speaker 306
Speaker 310
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Stuart Stouffer
Unverified
Speaker 319
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 178
Speaker 324
Speaker 326
Speaker 144
Speaker 329
Speaker 337
Speaker 21
Speaker 270
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Speaker 348
Speaker 352
Speaker 353
Speaker 278
Speaker 359
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 253
Speaker 362
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 372
Speaker 374
Speaker 98
Speaker 297
Speaker 371
Speaker 404
Speaker 396
Speaker 364
Speaker 368
Speaker 411
Speaker 416