House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB291
· 8 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB291”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1493
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1493”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB262
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB262”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB307
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “to run her bill, Senate Bill 307. Senator Flowers, welcome to House Judiciary. You're recogn…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1492
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1492, Mr. Steele. Oh, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 262, okay. Members,…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1563
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…a.m., Senator Ingram would like to have a special order on House Bill 1563, and without objection, we're going to schedule House Bill…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1603
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1603”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB262
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…'m closed. Members, before the committee, do pass motion on House Bill 262. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, all those in fav…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB168
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB168”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB179
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB179”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB333
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB333”
|
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
to hear Senate Bill 291 first for Senator Bledsoe. Senator
Bledsoe, welcome to House Judiciary. You are recognized to run Senate Bill 291.
Speaker 6
0:23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Senate Bill 291 is from the police department in my area.
They collect about 60 bikes a year, and at this time the law says that they must sell those bikes and they must take that money and put it in the city treasury. What they would like to do is they would like the option, and it is permissive legislation, They would like the option of giving those bikes to Toys for Tots, to the City Parks Department for their bike trails, for after-school care. And at this point, there is no option but to sell them.
And so that's what the bill is about. And it, again, doesn't require any of the other police departments to do it. If they desire to do it, they can also do it. But this would certainly help them and help some very credible charities. I'd be glad to take any questions. Thank you for your
explanation, Senator. Members, any questions of Senator
Bledsoe? Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 291?
Seeing no one, members, what's the pleasure of the committee? I think Representative Gillum has a motion. Motion do pass. It's a proper motion. Members, before us, is a motion to do pass on Senate Bill 291? Any discussion or questions? Senator, I
assume you're closed. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm closed for my bill. Thank you. All right. Members, the question before the committee is passed to Senate Bill 291. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. You have passed Senate Bill 291 out of the committee. Thank you very much. Thank you. Members, one quick housekeeping matter that I neglected to mention. On Tuesday, March the
8th, at 10.30 a.m., Senator Ingram would like to have a special order on House Bill 1563, and without objection, we're going to schedule House Bill 1563 for a special order of business at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, March the 8th.
Without objection, we're going to continue to go out of order, and
we're going to take Representative Hall to run House Bill 1493. Representative Hall, welcome to the House Judiciary. You're
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:52
recognized to run House Bill 1493. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for allowing me to come second for you all. I have with me today Lieutenant Corey Gentry from the Arkansas State Police. House Bill 1493 is a bill that originated in the state police because of the issue of problems that they have. With the permission of the chair, I would let Lieutenant Gentry take over and explain the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Hall. Lieutenant Gentry, you're recognized. Please state your name and tell us
Speaker 19
3:21
who you're with. I'm Lieutenant Cora Gentry. I'm with the Arkansas State Police. This bill originated actually from our legal counsel's office. To give you a little background as to what the state police does, The legislature has delegated us with the authority to review departments that can patrol the interstates. This creates uniformity as to who can stop you and what the revenue is used for, various things.
And there are certain cities that are changing the name of their department, going to a city marshal department versus a municipal police department and thinks that they are not bound by this. So this bill is to merely clean up to make sure they can still patrol, but they have to ask permission that's posted on our website. So if someone's coming through and says, well, wait a minute, I got stopped by somebody wearing blue jeans in a truck or whatever, that they can look on the website and see who is authorized in that jurisdiction to make traffic stops on the interstates.
Thank you, Lieutenant Gentry. Are you
Chair
Unverified
4:24
complete with your explanation, Representative Hall? Mr. Chairman, we're through. We will then take questions. MR. Members,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:36
any questions for Representative Hall? Mr. Walker, you're recognized for a question. MR. Thank you, Ms. Gentry,
Representative Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few days ago, we approved a bill authorizing police officers of private and state colleges
have general arrest authority how does this bill address
their ability to patrol controlled access facilities generally I don't know
Speaker 28
5:08
of any controlled access facilities that run through public or private colleges as I understand
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:15
it as I understand it a policeman is a policeman 24 hours a day day, wherever he is or wherever she is, and sometimes people outside the area of jurisdiction
exercise authority outside their jurisdiction. There's no limitation on what they may do. So how does this affect them? MS. It doesn't. MR. It doesn't affect? So they can cross controlled access facilities without the authority by the director, but a municipal police officer cannot? MR.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
5:53
No, sir, that's not the way I interpret the bill.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:59
MR. Well, as I understand it, we did not limit their jurisdiction, and the bill that was proposed by someone did not limit their jurisdiction to the confines of the employment area in which they worked. And of course, police officers, when they go on and become private police officers and the like, working for Sears or Wal-Mart or whatever, they're still policemen, and they can do what policemen do. So.
Speaker 19
6:30
MS. If we haven't had that be a problem like we have with the other jurisdictions, so if it does become a problem, we'll address it in the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:38
next legislative session. MR. Well, there are some of the things that were presented
this session which weren't a problem either. So I mean I don't know the fact that you have to have a problem as a prerequisite for action. Do you think that you could amend this to include private what were essentially at one time private police officers who worked in either public or private institutions? MS.
Speaker 39
7:00
We can have our legal counsel review it. MR. Thank you. I think I
Speaker 44
7:13
saw Mr. Ratliff for a question. MR. I have a motion
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
7:18
at the proper time. Thank you, Mr. Ratliff. Mr. Wright, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gentry, my concern with this bill would be in an emergency situation where if there's an emergency situation and the Arkansas State Police are tied up with something else, they may need help, and that may limit.
That's not covered by this. It's not covered by this?
Right. It's not going to have any effect on that? That's correct. Okay. Mr. Nichols, you recognize?
Speaker 50
7:50
I'm sorry. Did I miss someone? Mr. Nichols, you recognize?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
7:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice you have constable here. Now, are these the constables that we have under the Arkansas state constitution? Yes, sir.
Okay. Are they paid by anybody? I'm not sure. Okay. In the law enforcement community like the state police, how do you feel about constables exercising their arrest authority?
We have no opinion on that. But you want to be able to give constables the authority to go into a controlled access area where now they don't have it?
Speaker 19
8:44
review their training and education and their policies before they are granted permission to do
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:50
that. MR. Okay. So if this bill passes, you're not going to allow a constable to have this access unless they have had certain training that meets your standards? Is that fair? MS. That's one of the issues that is
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
9:08
going to take care of that under your rules?
Speaker 50
9:12
Yes, sir. Okay. It's currently in place for other departments, so. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
9:23
Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Steele, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Did you cover – I hope I didn't miss it. Did you cover what the officer established under 1442-401 is? Could you just tell
Speaker 28
9:35
us briefly what kind of officer that is? I have a copy of that for you. I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
9:40
believe it's on line 27, first page. Right.
Speaker 19
9:47
I caught myself making it. That is public safety departments, Department of Public, where they call themselves a Department of Public Safety versus a Municipal Police Department.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
10:02
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Mr. Wright, you recognize again? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Another concern I have, Mr. Inchers, what What about
Speaker 75
10:09
sheriff's departments that may already have an established and working drug task force, and I'm specifically referring to St. Francis County?
Speaker 69
10:16
Generally, sheriff's offices are not covered in this bill,
that the drug task force operate with a coordination between a lot of agencies, so those are not covered by this. So they won't be prohibited from continuing to do what
Speaker 75
10:29
they're doing, is that correct? That's correct. MR. Thank you,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:41
Mr. Wright. Members, any additional questions? MR. I do. MR. Mr. Walker? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What conduct of either officers or would-be officers spurs the necessity for this bill?
Speaker 80
10:52
MR. Representative Walker, as I understand the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
11:00
essence of this bill is that under the current law of the state of Arkansas, interstate highways, which is controlled access roads, the state highway director has the authority to prohibit or allow patrols of police departments and other law enforcement agencies.
This, what happened is, according to the issue with the state police, has been that the municipal has decided if they change the designation from a municipal police department to a city marshal, and since the city marshal is not included into the code as it exists today, then they can control access interstate systems without permission from the colonel.
And they are stopping people on the interstate road, and sometimes they're not properly identified and we're having apparently there's some issues raised about that and we in the past since for I guess for several decades this this statue has been in place and it's not expanding it's just because it's changing they are expanding if it's expanding anything it's expanding the name from the municipal
police department to the municipal city marshal well I understand
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:29
I just wanted to know if this has been a problem that's quantifiable, or is it just something that represents a possibility? MS. Legal counsel wouldn't have
Speaker 37
12:41
brought it up to us had it not been an issue in the past. MR. Well, my
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:46
question is do you have any evidence that it's been a problem that we can see at any time?
That's all. I just want to see if you want a bill, I mean, it ought to be on the basis of some experience
that demonstrates the need for that bill. Now, I'm going to vote for it, but only because I want to go into something else. But, I mean, don't you think you ought to have some evidence? We do have evidence. I didn't know that you would want it here
Speaker 28
13:07
in committee. I always want evidence. Thank you. We can certainly
Speaker 22
13:13
make that available to you after this meeting if that's what you're in desire. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
13:22
Nichols, you recognize again? So now I think I'm understanding the bill. This is an attempt to stop some of the speed traps that sometimes some of our citizens get involved with.
Speaker 19
13:31
Is that the bottom line of this? The speed trap bill, the speed trap law is in a different section of the law, but this is to create uniformity as
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
13:43
to who works the interstates. So it would help the speed trap law then? Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Representative Hammer, you recognize?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:52
This doesn't mean that they can't do it. It just means they have to give permission from the state police to do it. Is
Speaker 69
13:57
that correct? That's correct. And it also helps the public that those people that have permission, they're posted on the website.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:01
Okay. And I wouldn't want to elaborate, but to Mr. Walker, I can tell you from personal experience that, yes, they will stop you on the interstate. And I've got a motion at due
time, as you would. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. We've got Mr. Ratliff ahead of you for that motion. Seeing no additional questions from the members, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill? Seeing no one, Mr. Hall, would you like to close for your bill? We're closed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall is closed for his bill. Members, what's the pleasure of the committee?
Speaker 91
14:33
Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Radley? Mr. Chairman, I move that we do pass on this
motion. Thank you, Mr. Radley. That's a proper motion. The motion before the committee members is to do pass on House Bill
1493. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing House Bill 1493 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Hall. You passed your bill. Mr. Chairman, the committee, I
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
14:55
thank you all for the thumbs up on this one. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's see.
We're going to continue to go out of order here. Give me one second to figure out who's next. Mr. Steele, you want to run your bill?
House Bill 1492, Mr. Steele. Oh, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 262, okay. Members, we're at Senate Bill 262. Members
again, this is Senate Bill 262, Representative Steele, you are recognized for 262 and please introduce your guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
16:08
And it's an honor to run my first bill before this committee. I know from experience that it will be judged on nothing but the merits. I'll allow my guest to introduce himself. This is a bill from the Attorney General's package, more specifically for the package targeting his cyber crimes investigative unit. And I'll turn it over to his Chief Deputy
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
16:28
to explain, to introduce himself and explain the bill. Mr. Phelps, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Brad Phelps
Unverified
16:35
My name is Brad Phelps. I'm the chief deputy at the attorney general's office.
As you all may know, one of our big initiatives this year is to start a cybercrimes unit. We have our own forensic lab being constructed, and we intend to work with local prosecutors on bringing cybercrimes cases. Under existing law, we have subpoena authority, and we thought that the law needed to be clarified as part of the cybercrimes initiative to make clear that this existing law includes criminal matters. We think it does, but we just want it to be safe and cautious when proceeding forward,
and that's for the origin of this bill. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Phelps. Mr. Steele, any additional comments? If I
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
17:22
may just add, as we mentioned, I think this is already in practice. We just want to make sure that we have statutory cover to do this. And I would also point out that this has been amended once to appease the Chamber of Commerce. I think there was a little bit of concern
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
17:37
in the first draft. Since then, it's been redrafted, and I haven't heard of any objections since then. I'll be happy to, I'm sure, with assistance, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Steele, one question from the Chair. Mr. Phelps, the prosecutors, are they okay with this bill?
Brad Phelps
Unverified
17:55
I believe, yes, that's correct. And they understand that this legislation in no way infringes on their authority. to bring cases. In fact, it is our hope that by using the tools through our subpoena power that when we work with elected prosecutors to bring cases, that will actually, the quality of those files we give to them to consider bringing will be enhanced. Thank you, Mr. Phelps. Mr. Wright,
you're recognized for a question? I just have a motion at the proper time. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 262? Seeing no one, members, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, Mr. Wright? That's a proper motion. Mr. Steele, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. Members, before the committee, do pass motion on House Bill 262. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing Senate Bill 262 indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Steele. You
Speaker 94
19:00
passed your first bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee. Members,
to run her bill, Senate Bill 307. Senator Flowers, welcome to House Judiciary. You're recognized to run Senate Bill 307.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
19:22
Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair, good morning to the members. Senate Bill 307 is a simple bill. It simply seeks to align failure to appears in misdemeanor cases with the original offense. I think it's a fair bill. I think presently under the law what you'll find is most of the misdemeanor offenses, which which are very minor offenses, have the effect when a person does not appear in court to
have the failure to appear offense classified two times, two degrees higher. And I think that's unfair. For instance, a Class C misdemeanor, which one would get a citation for speeding 15 miles over the speed limit when you fail to appear on that or fail to pay the fine, the failure to appear issued is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a much higher fine jail time.
But it also has the effect of causing an individual to lose a job in certain vocations and professions. So I think the law and our policy needs to be changed, and
that's why I offered this bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Senator.
Members, any questions for Senator Flowers? Representative Rogers, you recognize for a question?
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
20:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Flowers, I've had a couple calls from my district judges locally that were not in
favor of this. Can you tell me if they've taken a stand on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
21:14
this as a group? I'm not aware that the district judges have taken a stand as a group. I can tell you as a practicing attorney, I've often seen more district judges allow the practice of merger or even dropping or nal-prossing, allowing a nal-pross of the failure to appear. So I don't
think it's going to have a big impact on what the practice is presently.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
21:39
It appears they feel like it would hinder some of their collections within the district
court. Can you respond to that? Well, as I said before,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
21:53
the practice that I've seen, the reality is that many of these These offenses are merged into the original offense and there is no guilt entered on some of them. What happens in most cases is that a person who got a ticket or a citation failed to come
to court, the court would enter a failure to appear and that person would be picked up on the street, placed in jail, and in an effort to get out of jail, probably to go to work in a lot of instances, they'll simply have their relatives come down and pay the fine for both the original offense and the failure to appear. And that becomes that Class A misdemeanor conviction on their record. So a lot of times it doesn't happen that it goes before the court.
I think if more people were brought before the court and were explained to about the impact of the conviction for the failure to a peer charge, they probably would not just necessarily plead guilty or pay a fine on it. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Thank you, Ms. Rogers. Next on our list
is Mr. Hammer. You recognize for a question? MR.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:16
Thank you. Senator Flowers, just a couple quick questions. If we do this, is it going to lessen the incentive of those who are charged and take away some of the motivation for them to actually show up? That would be the
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
23:34
first question. Could you respond, please, ma'am? I don't believe it will, Representative. I think, you know,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:41
the fact that we still have a failure to appear and there would still be a fine and possibly jail time on most of these offenses,
then I can't see how it would serve any more as a deterrent to have the statutes to stay as they are now. I just can't see it. And a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:03
second question, and if I didn't misunderstand you, if I did, I apologize, but a minute ago you said you referred that a judge had the ability now to not necessarily take it as, and I'm putting this in my terminology, take it as far as what the current law allows.
So that shows discretion on the judge's part, correct?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:27
Well, yes, but generally it's at the recommendation of the prosecutor's office. What normally happens is that the prosecutor would make a recommendation, and that would then be put before the judge, and the judge would accept or not. Okay. So that ability
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:44
is already there without any – is that ability there already without any modifications to this, to where the judge has that liberty to do that?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:55
No, it's not, because
as I indicated before, the more real situation is that a person who fails to appear in court would get the offense of failure to appear issued against them, and they never go to court. They are arrested, and particularly with misdemeanor cases, it's just a matter of paying fines.
And so you don't see a judge. And many people with these minor infractions of the law do just that. They simply have their relatives to come and pay the fines. And so they are not aware necessarily of the fact that the classification of the crime, failure to appear, is two degrees
Speaker 136
25:45
higher. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 137
25:53
Hammer. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Flowers, let me ask you just hypothetically, under failure to appear, if one
is subpoenaed as a witness and doesn't appear, does the existing law authorize a judge to find or incarcerate the person who fails to show up as a witness? I'm not aware that it does. these are
it says the statute says a person commits the offense if he or she fails to appear without reasonable excuse it doesn't say an accused or a charged party it's just a person and it could be based on the subpoena law that we just passed or at least approved it could be that the person is simply a witness and doesn't show up and then does that mean so you you don't know whether the existing law covers
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
27:00
that well this um on line 25 on the first page it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:06
says um fail uh commits well 23 is commits the offense of failure to appear and um 25 says cited or summonsed as an as an accused so he is so it But
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:20
the person isn't accused. Yes. So
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:23
I don't know that that would necessarily play out with just a subpoena in a civil case.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:30
That's good. Now, the other question is this. I guess I didn't know that a person could be given a greater penalty for failure to appear than
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:43
the underlying offense of which the person is charged. Well, that's what I'm trying to correct. Is that it? And the present law, like the example I gave earlier, for a simple speeding ticket, speeding and cited as going 15 miles over the speed limit, that's a Class C misdemeanor.
And presently, if you fail to appear in court, the failure to appear that would be issued would become a Class A misdemeanor. That's two degrees higher. And the Class A misdemeanor, like I said, has many implications and impacts on individuals that simply go down, pay a fine. I've had constituents to lose jobs. MR. I understand.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
28:29
It just seems to be
fundamentally unfair to me for the existing law to do that.
MR. That's all your questions, Mr. Walker. Thank you. Mr. Steele, you recognize for a
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
28:45
question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Flowers, Representative Chepard and I were just talking about this, and correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that the violation is not an arrestable offense. Is that correct? MS. As far as
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
28:59
had a simple speeding ticket of, say, 5 or 10 miles per hour over and it was a violation, and then the failure to appear was on the same level as the underlying charge,
which would also be a violation, then a district judge would not be able to issue a warrant But
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:16
for the arrest of that person, is that a fair interpretation? Well, not necessarily, because under the present law, for the
original offense being a violation, it still rises to, I believe, a Class C misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken. For
the failure to appear. Yes, for the failure to appear. So that, I believe, is something that can be used to arrest a person.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
29:44
Right. My understanding of this bill would be that it would actually change all the failure
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
29:50
to appears to the same level as the underlying charge. For misdemeanors. That's correct. Okay. But for a violation, it wouldn't change the fact that the failure to appear on a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:02
violation would become a misdemeanor? Yes, it would. The violation, the original offense being a violation, under this proposal that I have, would result in the failure to appear being a violation as well. That's my
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
30:13
concern. That would mean that an arrest warrant could not be issued because a violation is not an arrestable offense.
So if someone had 10 speeding tickets, but none of them were over 15 miles an hour, in other words, none of them were misdemeanors, they would never really be compelled to come to court because the violation itself is not an arrestable offense. Then the failure to appear becomes a violation, not a misdemeanor, so a warrant could not be issued for their arrest. So I don't understand how we could compel people to come to court for a violation.
Does that make sense? And my logic may be off here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
30:51
Well, the premise that I used to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:57
even think of this bill was because we're not talking about serious offenses, serious infractions of the law. And for the violation, I'm not so certain that that speeding ticket that you talked about would be considered a violation. I don't know that it would not just be a class C.
I'm not certain of that. Somebody in the room might have more information about that. But at any rate, I don't think that it is unfair. I don't think that what we see now are a lot of warrants just being served on people for failure to appear. What we find more, in my estimation, is that in traffic stops for some other violation of the law, someone is called in and it comes up that they have a failure to appear.
So the other thing about violations, what I've seen more in terms of violations are your ordinances that deal with maybe a yard, weeds, grass, that kind of stuff. And the city always, in most cases, has the ability to get those types of nuisances cleared. And if the city incurs the cost or contracts with some service to get that done, they can
always put a lien on a person's property. But I think that to – I think we've taken our public policy too far,
Speaker 131
32:38
and I'm trying to correct that, even with the violation. Okay. And I understand that.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
32:43
I was just making sure that I understood that as of right now, a violation, a speeding ticket, if I'm pulled over for a speeding ticket
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
32:52
that's a simple violation or failure to use a turn signal or whatever the violation may be, that's not an arrestable offense. I cannot be arrested on the spot there. If I fail to appear in court at my court date and I don't post the bond, then at that point I've committed a misdemeanor, which is how the warrant gets issued.
And under this bill, if I fail to appear in court one time or ten times or twenty times, I don't believe any warrant could ever be issued because it's still just a violation. Does that make sense? And that may be the goal of the bill, and if it is, I understand that. But I'm just making sure I understand that there would be no compulsion to ever come to court if you only commit a violation. I mean, as you said, maybe they could get a lien or something against, I guess if your fines pile up, maybe the city could get some kind of civil lien, but there would never be any warrant issued, correct?
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
33:45
Well, I think the failure to appear would be
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:50
issued, and like I said before, Or if you have a failure to appear, I mean, to some extent, I think, you know, the violation is one thing. You can take an issue with that. But generally speaking, I think the practice I've seen is that it's more the misdemeanors. I
haven't seen violations that have, you know, so much attention.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
34:19
Okay. I've talked to you about this bill in the past, and I apologize for this not coming to my attention at that time, or I would have mentioned it then. I just now
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
34:29
started putting this all together. But I, for one, would be more comfortable if that one area, the violation itself, were an exception in this bill to where a failure to appear under the violation became a Class C misdemeanor. Therefore, a warrant could be issued. Otherwise, I'm afraid one could accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and we would never have the option of issuing an arrest warrant
because they've never committed any kind of misdemeanor and a violation is not an arrestable offense. So if I
have concerns with the bill, that would be
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
35:02
it. But I appreciate you clearing it up for me. And one other thing that I would mention, too, that I don't believe anything would prohibit a local governing body from providing an ordinance that would raise the seriousness of these offenses. So that's something, these violations that you mentioned that you're concerned about
might be better attended to at the city level, and that would give the city the ability to look at what's going on in their courts, whether people are not appearing in court for violations, And if
that's a problem, then I would think that they could raise the classification. Mr. Chair. Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:47
Walker, you recognize your next? Yeah, I'd like to just address Representative Steele's point.
It seems like, Representative Steele, you're addressing the... Mr. Walker, do you have a question
for Ms. Flowers? Yes, I'll do it this way. All right. Ms.
Flowers, is there any difference between the situation that you have been presented by Representative Steele and a situation of a scofflaw, a person who has had multiple traffic tickets for, at least tickets for violating, not paying for parking and things like that?
and he or she may have accumulated $1,000, $2,000 in fines. Is this the case in Little Rock from time to time? Right. Those fines can be collected, can't they? That's correct. That's correct. And a court can issue an order
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:43
if a person refuses to pay the fines. That's correct. And then with the violations,
another thing, if it's a nuisance, or their means that the city attorney's office generally uses to address collections
and the abatement of whatever the underlying offense was. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Deffenbaugh, you
Speaker 171
37:05
recognize? I make a motion for immediate consideration. Well, right
now, Mr. Deffenbaugh, there's nothing before us to consider. We don't have a motion. If you'd like to limit the debate, I'd be happy to take that motion.
That's a proper motion. Motion for limited debate. How long would you like to know? What do I know? Ten
Speaker 115
37:21
minutes. Ten minutes. Ten minutes total? Ten minutes total, yes, sir.
Okay, so we're going to limit. We really hadn't gotten. I assume you want to limit public testimony to ten minutes per side. Is
Speaker 174
37:36
that correct? We really hadn't gotten that yet. Five per side.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:40
Five per side, all right. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. If I might, I have someone here from the public defender's office as well. that I'd like to have speak on my bill. Absolutely. We're not
going to take away time for you to present your bill.
We're going to limit public debate once we get there. We haven't gotten that yet. And if we have a few people signed up, would you like them to be a part of your presentation now? Or would you like them? Okay. There's someone from the public defender's office who wants to come and present with Senator Flowers. That would be great. Please state your name for the record.
Speaker 179
38:36
Tammy Harris from the Arkansas Public Defender
Speaker 181
38:41
Commission. In respect to the questions that Senator Still raised about the violation, it's been my experience, the practice that I've seen at least in Little Rock District Court and
Pulaski County that I've seen, what I have seen anyway, someone that has repeat violations with traffic offenses, that that may be something that would best be dealt with through the Department of Finance and Administration. Someone were a repeat offender, I think their driver's license may be dealt with by a suspension or something of that matter. If they have a failure to appear something of that magnitude, perhaps a failure to appear could be issued and then that notice could be sent to the Department of Finance and Administration.
That may be some way that a failure to appear violation can be dealt with in regards to this bill, if that addresses some of your concerns, Representative Steele. Thank you,
Ms. Harris. Mr. Steele, would you like to respond? I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
39:49
just to be clear, my concern is this, and you can tell me whether or not I'm correct. Under the current system, a district
judge has the authority to issue a warrant on a failure to appear for any charge for the failure to appear as a misdemeanor. Is that correct?
Yes, sir. And if this bill is accepted, if this bill is passed, then a district judge will no longer have the authority to issue a warrant for failure to appear under a violation
Speaker 181
40:18
is that correct I believe they could they could issue some paperwork and how that would best go about being served I think that would with a violation I'm not sure how we would go about actually enforcing that my district judge down
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
40:31
in Howard County would have to go through DFA and Little Rock in
order to I guess in order to enforce the law yes sir your district
does with thank you very much thank you mr. chairman
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
40:49
thank you mr. Steele mr. Gilliam you recognized and then mrs. Rogers thank you mr. chair and representative Steele just kind of hit on my question here it seems to be that we're actually creating more of a workload for these folks to take care of this I mean by having these judges come through DF&A and do all this other in and around than what they do now.
Is that not correct? I mean, because it's all
from what I've heard so far and read, it just seems to be that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:19
we're creating more of a problem here than trying to fix it. MS. I don't see it that way, Representative Gilliam. I think we're I'm trying to fix a problem. And the problem now is not anything that affects the district courts. I mean, you know, if you want to talk about the money aspect of it, and that's pretty
much all that I've heard from the administrative office of the courts, that it shrinks their possibility for fines. But other than that, I've not heard anything, and this does not create any additional paperwork that's not already being used for anybody in a court. What it does do, it addresses, in my mind, problems that we are creating through the
the public policy of having these misdemeanor charges, the failure to appear associated with them in a
greater degree, two degrees greater, it has the effect of
keeping somebody from being employed or losing employment. And so I'm trying to address that because I have constituents that depend on a job, minimum wage job, such as a security officer, and they're losing their jobs when they get
picked up, when they can't make court, and they get a failure to appear, and they get locked up, and they pay the fine, and it becomes a conviction. They lose their job. They lose their ability to earn a living to support their family, and that's what I'm trying to address. I haven't heard anything. I did hear from the Arkansas Bar Association, someone with their legislative group, that they support this. So like I said, I haven't heard anything from my district
judges and no group of judges against this. I spoke with the judges from my district. We had a meeting that I attended before the session started, and I gave this as one of my ideas for a proposal for legislation, and I did not get any objection. Okay. Thank you for the
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
43:54
answer. Mr. Chairman, if I may, a follow-up. Sure. So in the situation that Representative Steele mentioned in concern to having to go through
DF&A and stuff, you don't feel like that is actually more work for a judge to have to go through D, F, and A in order to get the fines
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
44:16
collected than what he's doing now? No, I don't think so. What happens when you're talking about these traffic tickets, when you get moving violations cited against you, if you get so many, it's going to go to the Office of Driver Control anyway, and so that's not something that's going to add another burden.
That's the practice now. I'm just trying to lessen the seriousness of these offenses that are minor offenses. They're minor. And like I said, a local government, they can create ordinances for these violations. And what the violations I've seen have more to do with your weeds, debris on lots and that kind of thing. So I don't think
Speaker 126
45:07
I'm creating an extra burden or extra work at all.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
45:12
Thank you for the answer. Thank you,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
45:17
Mr. Chairman. Rep. Rogers, recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a couple different questions, so if you'll indulge me. Ms. Centerflowers, you indicated, and my previous question may not have been as specific as it should have been in regards to district judges, But does the AOC represent the
district judges? No, not that I'm aware of. As a matter of fact, the group that I met with was represented.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
45:48
They had their own lobbyists. So I don't know whether they were the district judges or inclusive of circuit judges or what. But, no, I haven't seen the AOC necessarily representing district judges. I haven't seen that. Did you
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
46:07
indicate that the AOC had an objection to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
46:11
this bill? Well, someone from AOC said that some of the funds that are collected,
the fines, go to support some things in AOC. And they didn't say exactly what. And they couldn't give me a percentage of the funds or the amount of the funds, and I've had even asked of the Bureau to give me an idea. So, you know, there is nothing substantial that has been identified to me that AOC or any entity that's funded by the
collection of these fines, what the effect would be.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
47:00
Is there anyone here from the AOC that can speak to this and tell us, you know, how they would be affected, how the district judges would be affected by this, and how the AOC would be affected by the collection or non-collection of these fines?
Well, let's see, Ms. Rogers. I know Mr. Gingrich is out. Let's see if anyone from AOC is prepared to – Keith, you're back there? All
right. Keith Cavness from AOC is coming up to try
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
47:29
to answer your question. My other question was if it was a Municipal League issue, too.
If... We'll get them next. Okay. Please state your name for
Speaker 137
47:44
the record. Keith Cavanaugh, Administrative Officer of the Court. Mr. Cavanaugh, did you hear
Speaker 207
47:52
Mrs. Rogers' question? Do... Well, no. Could she repeat it? Sure. Ms. Rogers, do
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
47:57
you repeat your question? My original question was if the AOC represents the district judges and if the AOC has taken
Speaker 211
48:04
a position on this bill. The Representative Rogers, the district judge, there is an Arkansas District Judges Council. They have meetings and they had a meeting before this legislative session and they did not choose an amendment of the failure to appear law as some legislation they needed or wanted. I mean, we staff, district judge, council meetings.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
48:38
They make their own decisions. Senator, a question to Ms. Rogers? Yes. Thank you. Do you have more questions for him? A couple follow-ups. for
Mr. Kavanagh, though. Would you like Mr. Hayes right now, or you want to ask would you
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
48:56
like Senator Flowers? If he gives a response to
it, I certainly would. Mr. Hayes, would you come to the table and
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
49:02
introduce yourself and answer Ms. Rogers' question? My bottom line is I'm trying to get to what the issue is with district judges. Sure.
Speaker 213
49:10
Mr. Hayes, please state your name. I'm Mark Hayes. I'm the general counsel with the Arkansas Municipal League. I can't speak to what the district judge's position is or their association is. I can tell you what the predicament they will be in with regard to the violations. Representative Steele is exactly correct. I spoke with the senator briefly about this. It strikes me there's really two issues sort of in this. The first issue is what's the policy of the state of Arkansas for not coming to court at a district court level.
That's certainly out of my bailiwick and not appropriate for me to make commentary on. And that's just a judicial function that's appropriate for debate in this committee. The violation issue, though, is a very substantive one if you wish to have people brought into court to make them accountable for whatever the charges are against them. So that would be the only issue that I'm aware of related to cities. Thank you, Mr.
Hazen. Ms. Rogers, do you have additional questions?
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
50:13
Thank you, Mr. Hazen. Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Chair. Representative
Flowers, you indicated that these are minor offenses and you're trying to lessen that to make it such so that these people are not suffering from these minor offenses with jobs and issues. But what happens or what kind of recourse is there if there are multiple offenses that just keep adding up over time and then a district just doesn't have any type of recourse that
they can take against. MR. Ms. Rogers, I hate to interrupt. And Senator Flowers, not to take over your, this is your bill, it's just been brought to the Chair's attention some additional legislation or some additional case law or law, statutory law that may help answer the question we're having here. And Representative Nichols has that as a good lawyer handy there. I think this may clear up some things with regard to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
51:08
this particular issue if Representative Nichols would share that with the committee. MR. Okay. about the multiple offender
not being able to bring that person in court, but Arkansas
Code 2750302, classification of traffic violations, and one section of this, more than three violations in a 12-month period is a Class C misdemeanor. So that kind of puts it back in where you will be able, I think, to take care of the the issue that Mr. Steele was raising. Would you agree, Representative, Senator
Flowers? Yes, I would, and I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. In the form of
a question, I thought that might shed a little light.
It may not answer the question, but I wanted the committee to
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
51:52
have that. Representative Rogers, please continue. Just one more question, please. With this issue, and I'm truly asking the question, but it appears that you've testified that it's that you haven't had any kind of opposition from Jefferson County or Pulaski County or Little Rock but what about our smaller district courts and the rural areas is there something is there some reason that would and because of what they have to do with DF&A and reporting and requesting is there
something that would be causing
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
52:24
them the concern I can't I can't see it Representative Rogers, the reporting requirement is already there, and moving violations are reported to DF&A, and I mean we have a system set up that requires that reporting. So no, I cannot see even in rural communities, and I have rural communities within my district,
And I have not had any conversations or any notice of any opposition to this. I think this is a fair bill. Thank you. Thank you,
Ms. Rogers. Members, without objection, I note that this morning we had 27 bills on our agenda on the active list, eight on the deferred and more coming. And I don't want to limit your debate, but in trying to give an effect to Mr. Deffenbaugh's motion to limit debate, we can limit debate on the public. We can limit the debate on ourselves once we have a motion in front of us.
Right now it's not really a time to limit debate, but if you don't mind, let's move to the public testimony. I will entertain the motion to limit debate on that to five minutes per side. Then it will come back to us, and I've got a list of folks who want to ask questions. And if you want to limit the debate then, we can do it again. But without objection, I'll take it in that order if that's okay with the committee. So right now, if there's anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the bill and signed up right now to speak against the bill is Sheriff Montgomery. Is Sheriff Montgomery? I don't see him anymore. Is she still here? All right. Well, is there anyone else who wants to speak against the bill besides Sheriff Montgomery?
Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for the bill? Well, we don't have to limit that debate then. Great. All right. Now
let's go back to our committee. Next
on my list for questions, Representative Nichols. You're next. I'd like to make a motion at the proper time. Thank you. Mr. Nichols, Mr. Shepard, you're next. No questions. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
54:30
Chair. Senator Flowers, we've talked a lot about what the strategic law,
but what is actually happening in this process. Once a person gets a minor fine, what is happening? Are they able to pay that fine, or are they better able to pay it once a failure to appear is on, or are we just putting things
on the books that cannot be achieved and we finally have to write it off?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
54:59
In a lot of instances, Representative Baker and I appreciate that question, they don't have the fine.
And so we are locking more people up, and then they come out of jail in a worse position because they're going to lose a job. And so I appreciate the question. I hope that answers it. Thank you. So
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
55:22
this is a practice that cannot solve the problem because usually a
person that don't come to code is usually because they can't pay
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
55:34
the fine. Well, in some instances, but it's not always.
People forget. People feel obligated to go instead to work, and they may forget. And I've had individuals that indicate that, you know, they were not the one actually cited, that it was somebody else that gave their name. And so there are a lot of reasons, but,
Speaker 193
56:03
you know, one is that they are not prepared to
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
56:08
pay the fine at that time. Thank you, Senator Flowers. And I saw this in my
area and it has accumulated a lot of book numbers that cannot possibly be collected. So I hope
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
56:29
do something about this. Thank you, Mr. Bakers. Mr. Powers, I recognize you for a question. Thank you. Senator, obviously Representative Nichols showed us a remedy to the questions that have been being asked regarding three times.
The question I have is this paragraph that everyone is talking about on line 21 of page 2. Was the intention, was your intention with this violation paragraph, was it do you intend that a judge not be able to issue a warrant or was that simply an unintended consequence and I'm just asking just to clarify for me because I understand everything else and I'm in agreement with everything else. I just want to know if that was your intention, that a violation should include the consequence of a judge not
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
57:23
To be truthful with you, Representative Powers, I hadn't given much thought to that violation and the alignment of the failure to appear with the violation as the original charge. But like I said before, I do not believe that the violation offense that one would be cited with would be so serious as to justify what we have now as a Class C misdemeanor. Like I said, if you consider what the offenses are that are considered violations, a lot of what I've seen has more to do with the city's ability to get somebody to clean a yard, cut a yard, pick up trash, and that kind of thing.
And so the city has remedies if a person is absent from court or doesn't remedy the situation. The city can take action, contract somebody to remedy the situation, and then take a lien on that person's property. Well, thank you. And I think you've answered
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
58:37
my question. And maybe you didn't intend for that to be a front burner issue, but in the end, we provided
a remedy for those questions. Would you
agree? I would. MR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Seeing no additional
Speaker 226
58:56
questions from the members, I am going to recognize Representative
Nichols for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes, I move do pass. That's a proper motion. Members, before the committee, there's a motion of due pass on Senate Bill 307. Any question or discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of passing Senate Bill 307 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Chair rules that noes have it. I'm sorry, Senator Flowers, Senate Bill 307 did not
pass this committee. Thank you, Senator. Next, members, without objection, we're going to continue to take a few bills out of order. Senator Hutchinson has waited patiently for us, and we're going to hear from him. Senator, which bill would you like to run first? Do you care about the order?
Senate Bill 333, members. And we have an amendment
for Senate Bill 333. Does everyone have the
Let's see if we can get this amendment on the bill here. Senator, this is in a minute by
Representative Hammer. I'm going to recognize a motion from Representative Hammer to amend Senate Bill 333 with Amendment No. 1. All in favor, aye.
Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Senator Hutchinson, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 333 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:00:58
hope this bill won't be as controversial. It doesn't mean anything, I know, but it passed 8-0 in Senate Judiciary and 34-1 on the floor.
Speaker 233
1:01:08
But that means nothing over here, I realize. But this, I probably just doomed my bill to failure by mentioning that. But this is a bill that has come about just because of the realities of practicing law in the state of Arkansas. and I'll, for the
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:01:31
sake of the non-attorneys on the committee, if you currently, if you sue an out-of-state defendant,
you're an Arkansas resident or an Arkansas corporation, you sue an out-of-state defendant, out-of-state corporation, it goes to federal court. It's called diversity. Unless you're below $75,000 in damages on an individual claim or less than $5 million on a class action. In that case, it can stay in state court. Well, plaintiffs like to be in state court. Local judges, usually a quicker docket time. So oftentimes, plaintiffs will assert and pray for damages less than that threshold amount,
less than $75,000 on individual, less than $5 million on class actions, and get into state court. But when it comes time for damages at the end of a trial, A jury is sitting there, and they do punitives, they can do interest, they can do attorney's fees, and there's oftentimes the amounts that are collected are far greater than the threshold amount, the $75,000 for an individual, $5 million. So defendants now are bringing everything to federal court. They're removing them all to federal court, which they have a right to do,
and it's tying up the dockets and the judicial process and spending a year in federal court, deciding whether or not this complaint by plaintiff can be believed. Is it really going to be less than $75,000? And so this bill simply says that if you're trying to access state courts, which is our responsibility to fund, judges and court system come down every year asking for more money and more judges. And so if they're going to utilize our resources in state court, they're going to be bound by the amount that they've asserted that they're going to be beneath, so $75,000 on an individual
claim and $5 million on a class action. If they want to amend their complaint at some point and seek more than that, they have the right to do that and they can then go to federal. It will be the whole process. It will continue about removal and whatnot. But it's trying to speed up the process, trying to limit the access to our state courts, enforce the rules. If you're going to try to access our courts, you're going to abide by the threshold amounts and not come in after the fact and seek more. It's also, for plaintiffs, it's helpful because you don't get monkeyed around
and taken to federal court every time you file a case in state court and waste time and resources just trying to get your case heard. So I think it helps both defendants and plaintiffs, and I think that's why it passed pretty substantially over in the Senate. And I'd take any questions. I can tell you the Bar Association is neutral on it. They sent out and got very little response. Everybody seemed to be okay with it. The trial lawyers had an amendment that you're seeing before you today.
They're comfortable with it now. And so I'll take any questions
Speaker 233
1:04:32
if there are any. Senator Hutchinson, being one of those lawyers who's often in
federal court, not in state court, but I want to make sure I understand the amendment because I'm just seeing it just now trying to read it as you talk. Can you explain the purpose of the amendment and what really the amendment on page two is doing? That's where I was trying to – does that make sense? Page two is
Speaker 235
1:04:58
the – I don't have the bill in front of me, but that's the emergency clause, I believe.
Well, we're deleting lines one through three and substituting the language at the bottom of the amendment. Is that just the emergency clause? Oh, okay. Scratch that. I see it. I'm sorry. I'm trying to read
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:05:18
this as we go. I got it. That's no problem. And the reason for that is there's been an issue. Does this infringe on rulemaking? Thank you. Does this infringe on the rulemaking of the courts? Is this substantive or is it procedural? And so the emergency clause language, just kind of legislative intent,
It says that this is a matter of state resources. We're the ones, trustees, of the taxpayers' funds, and we have the responsibility and the right to limit access to our state courts. They've set the rules. We're not trying to change the threshold or the type of pleading or what you ask for or pray for. But if you are going to assert that you're going to be less than the $75,000 so that you can get into our state courts as trustees of that taxpayer dollars, we're going to hold you to it because you're utilizing our resources,
and if you're gaming the system to utilize our resources, we have a right as a
Chair
Unverified
1:06:15
legislature to say no. We're not going to let you
do that. And does this mean you're bound? Does this also bind a jury, for example, in a punitive award situation? Could they award more than the amount, $5 million in class action or $75,000? This would limit what a jury could do also, so a jury would be bound. But all you'd have to do
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:06:36
is plead. You've got to be careful in your complaint.
But if you're saying that you're going to be less than this amount, then it's going to limit you to it. So it requires plaintiff's lawyers, of which I am one oftentimes, to
Chair
Unverified
1:06:55
be strategic and careful in their pleadings. Sure. All right. Any questions, members? Representative Steele, then followed by Representative Shepard.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:07:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. You mentioned something that made me happy, though, for a second, that this would benefit
lawyers who want to stay in state court, actually the ones bringing the lawsuit or not. With all due respect to federal judges, I avoid federal court like the plague. I don't think I could spend an hour of a federal court. So could you tell me again if it's going to, I guess, disincentivize plaintiff's lawyers from using our state courts, then how,
again, does it benefit, say, me as a state lawyer who wants to stay in state court? And me,
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:07:38
who wants to stay in state court.
Because if you assert it's going to be less than $75,000, now that there's statutory guidelines to say you're bound by that, there's no question in controversy when it gets removed to a federal court, are they going to come back with more damages? Is this really inaccurate? So that whole argument is moot. The federal judge would hopefully apply state law and say, well, there's a statute that says they're bound by it. They're entitled to state court. And I remand it back to state court without the whole trying to prove these really are my damages.
The defendant's trying to prove, look, this is what happened in other states. They end up getting this amount. And there's all that debate. You're basically doing a damage. which is part of the trial in federal court, and that would all be removed. The judge would look at state statute and apply it and say they've said there are less than $75,000. They're bound by that amount by state law, so there's no question of controversy, and remand it
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:08:46
back to state court. One more question. Sure. Pardon my ignorance, but as it stands now, if I were to file a complaint asking for $74,999,
and could it be interpreted that but I'm also asking for punitive damages and attorney's fees and all these other things. As it stands now, could they add that in and remove me to federal court? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And even
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:09:10
if you don't ask for that, the defendants will say that he could get it. Mr. Shepard, you're
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:09:16
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I have two questions, and I think you and I have talked about at least one of these.
With regard to the prayer for damages, as I understand, lawyers could continue to pray for it in generic terms. For example, for an amount in excess of that required for diversity jurisdiction in federal court or an amount in excess of $75,000, is that sufficient?
That complies with what you're requiring here.
Speaker 233
1:09:45
Is that correct? Yeah, and that's part of the amendment. The original bill said that it's required to pray for an amount.
I didn't mean it. So we said they
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:09:58
may plead for a certain amount, but they're not required. They can still be vague and less than, more than $75,000. Not down to the
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:10:08
penny. They don't have to set a specific dollar amount that they're asking for. Second question, this would not in any way bind a jury or a judge with regard to an award of damages that is less than the amount that they've asked for. No. Okay. Thank you.
Can you further explain your last question? I thought that was a question I just asked you and I got
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:10:34
a different answer. So maybe I didn't understand that your question is less than the $75,000. I thought your question had to do with an amount in excess, and as I understand this bill, it's to give certainty as to what amount is asked for it. What I'm thinking about is if I've asked for an amount in excess of $75,000 and it's removed to federal court, or if it's not,
and a judge or jury says that's not a $75,000 case, but it's a $5,000 case, there would be nothing to prohibit a judge or jury from awarding an amount lower than what was asked for. I'm sorry. I understand. It does require, if
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:11:12
you think you're getting up close to that $75,000 in damages, you're going to have to think long and hard about are you willing to stay in state court and seek less, or are you wanting to. So it's going to probably require a little more strategic thinking on the part of a plaintiff's lawyer
who's right there on that threshold level. But I think for the plaintiffs, it's worth it because you have some guarantee that you're the master of your complaint. You get to choose the venue you want to be in. And it's helpful for the defendants because if they're in state
Speaker 233
1:11:42
court, at least they know what their exposure is. Thank you, Senator. Representative Shepard, are you
Chair
Unverified
1:11:49
done? That's all? Thank you. Representative Walker, you recognize? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are the questions I've been dreading.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:12:00
MR. Thank you. Senator Hutchinson, what precipitates the necessity for this bill? I mean, I'd like to know, I mean, I've practiced law in almost 50 years, and I've never seen a bill like this that has been presented where a person originates a case in state court and moves it or removes it to federal court, and in the federal court, somebody or another as being bound by what has happened in the state.
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:12:32
Well, they're not bound by it, but you'd hope they'd apply state law, and that would remove the question of controversy. Well, this is not a diversity case. No, if it's not diversity, then there's no issue. This
Speaker 233
1:12:48
only applies to you're under the threshold to obtain subject matter jurisdiction,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:12:53
and so it'd be diversity cases. So this only applies to diversity cases? So it would not apply to the ordinary case in Arkansas, which may be a class action, where a group of employees are contending that an employer has underpaid them
with respect to wage and hour matters covered by state law, and they want monetary damages. In that situation, they don't have to plead the damages. There's no
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:13:20
threshold for damages. You've got subject matter jurisdiction because both parties are residents or corporations in the state of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:13:27
Arkansas. So what you're trying to do
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:13:30
is regulate the federal courts? No. I wish I could because I'd do it, by God. But, no, we're offering state statute that they are supposed to apply, and I believe they would apply that says this question of whether or not these pleadings
and these pray for damages can be believed, the state statute says they're bound by it. So a federal judge would look at state law and say, well, they've asked for less than $75,000. State statute says they're bound to less than $75,000, so there's no chance it rises above that $75,000. So it's in state court. All right, so you're
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:14:08
trying to get federal actions back in the state court. Well,
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:14:12
yes, and then I'm also trying to say that if you're utilizing our resources in the state courts,
you better be doing it legitimately. Don't come in here claiming you're going to ask for less than $75,000
Speaker 233
1:14:25
and then end up going before a jury and asking for a half million dollars because we just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:14:33
expended a lot of state resources on your trial and court. Well, how does that job with the situation where a person knows that he or she has damages that are at least $50,000, but the damages are continuing and are not certain, situation, such as in a medical case where a person may have sustained major injury and
is still being treated, or a person is in a civil rights situation where the person has incurred wage loss or unemployment and the amount of the loss is continuing and therefore may change from day to day upward? Or how may it deal with a case where you have, in the area where Mr. Williams practices, some securities violations where the damages may
be subject to change depending on the passage of time?
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:15:29
Well, again, I think it does put a little extra burden on a plaintiff's lawyer to really assess the value of the case before filing. um it gives also though because you if there's accruing damages then you you better know what you think that's going to be and if it's going to surpass 75,000 and it significantly passes it for me personally if it's i could get 80,000 and end up in federal court or i could cap myself at 75,000 and know i'm going to be in state court i'd plead less than 75,000 just to know i'm in state court
but that's a strategic decision that lawyers are going to have to make. So there is an extra burden on the plaintiff's lawyer before filing that they do a legitimate and thorough damage assessment. Well, let me ask you. The benefit to the plaintiff's lawyer is they don't have to spend a year in federal court just trying to get back to state court. So I think
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:16:30
in the end it's very advantageous for a plaintiff's lawyer. Well, how does this affect the tolling power, I
mean, the tolling statutes of the state of Arkansas?
I mean, a person is able to, under ordinary circumstances in either federal
or state court, dismiss without prejudice and refile within a year either in federal or state. They could still do that. Well, are you saying that the person is
bound upon refiling to the same amount that he or she pled in the first pleading? No. Now, would not this also increase the burdens on the court and on the lawyers, especially the plaintiff's lawyers, when it comes to having to file motions to amend and generate more judicial responses as well as lawyer time?
In other words, conservatives usually talk about trying to cut out lawyer time and trying to discourage lawsuits. I don't
do that. I don't do that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:17:41
I'm the lawyer hired, I do. But
how does this go to judicial convenience and burdens? burdens? Well, I think there could be
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:17:51
a case, and I said that in my opening, where you may need
to amend your complaint if you see that your damages are going to exceed the $75,000. You may want to amend, and that adds a little work to the plaintiff's lawyer. But you don't have to fight removals, and you don't have to – I mean, I don't know But you want to talk about some pleading, go to federal court and try to get it remanded back to state court, and the defendants are paying a lot of money to lawyers, too, to try to get it back to state court.
Plaintiff's lawyers are usually on contingency working sometimes a year on is this damage really, what's the damage it's actually going to be. They'll cite Oklahoma, this similar case in Oklahoma, had this amount of damage. And you talk about work, that's work, only to try to get you back to the court that you filed it in. And the defendants are just trying to get some protection as well. This just, everybody, if you're under $75,000 and you assert that, then everybody knows the playing field,
you know what you've got, you know what court you're going to be in, and you can get right to the merits and have your case heard. I think it's helpful for every practicing attorney, whether they're on the defense or plaintiffs, and I think it's helpful for plaintiffs to be able to choose which court they want to bring their case in, and it's helpful for defendants to know that if we're going to be in state court, at least we know what our exposure is. There's not going to be any surprises at the end. So in limited cases, you may have to file an amended complaint,
But even that amended complaint, if
Speaker 233
1:19:36
it's just for this, all it is is changing the amount asked
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:19:44
for. It's not that difficult. Well, let me just take a case of a medical malpractice case. And a person is a resident of Arkansas, and one of the parties is a non-resident, or maybe several of them are non-residents, and they have a choice of forums, I guess. would that person be precluded from having a choice of forums under your bill?
No. But must that person then declare his or her damages in the state court proceeding in Arkansas while that person may not be required to do so
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:20:24
in an adjoining state? They don't have to declare anything. they can do filing a complaint just like you would today if you don't assert anything in state court I believe if you don't assert any damages it's assumed you're beneath because you filed in state court
it's assumed you're beneath that threshold and so you're in state court they will move you to federal court and fight it out and you can still do that the difference is now if you don't assert anything you assume you're under $75,000, then you're going to be bound by that because you sought to access our state court's resources. So you may want to, if you think it may go over $75,000, you probably don't want to remain silent anymore. You'll probably want to say this
Speaker 233
1:21:15
is asking for excess of $75,000.
Have the trial lawyers approved this? I was on a
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:21:22
conference call with them last night. I don't know. I can't say that they've endorsed it, but there's their legislative committee. Mr. Brooks, Ryan Brooks, you're probably aware of, asked for this amendment. We've got it for them, and they felt very comfortable with it after that. I don't want to say they endorsed it because I don't know if they've ever met to take it formal, but they felt very comfortable with it. At least the
Speaker 233
1:21:49
members on their legislative committee felt very comfortable with it after this amendment.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:21:56
Well, I guess the amendment bothers me, too, because it says there are often complaints that are misconstrued with respect to the amount in controversy. I mean, how do you misconstrue the amount in controversy when you say that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000? Well, you're not
Speaker 233
1:22:16
in that case. What it's talking about is you say it's less than $75,000. Then you come back and ask for $500,000
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:22:23
when you go before the jury asking for damages. So you really are trying to only affect small claims when they leave state court
Speaker 252
1:22:32
and then are put into federal court in a diversity situation. Trying to
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:22:38
get those back to state court quickly where they belong, I think. And I'm trying to also keep cases that are worth millions from being filed in state court under $75,000, and everybody knows you're going to ask for punitives, and then you go to federal court or you get sent back to state court and waste our state court resources on a case that belonged in federal court. Do you
Speaker 252
1:23:02
really see a necessity for this bill since the present system seems to be working okay?
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:23:07
I don't think it is at all working okay. And I'm in federal court and get removed often. And, yes, I can see a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:23:17
great necessity for it. Is there any documentation that supports your point of view that we can see? I go read
Speaker 235
1:23:24
Judge Hendren's order from a few months ago, and he's related to me somehow,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:23:29
I think. But Judge Hendren, I mean, you know, in all due respect, Judge Hendren likes to
dismiss as much as he can. I mean, you know, almost everything, almost everything, I mean, he doesn't, you know, he doesn't, I mean, motions for summary judgment are almost always granted, and whatever the defendant wants, I mean, in all due respect, whatever the defendant wants, Judge Hendren usually gives, he gave me a decent fee one.
You got a question there, Mr.
Walker? No, no, no, but I'm saying, I'm trying to find, I'm trying to understand what the source of this is. I don't see any documentation. Do you have anything that we
can see in writing that supports the necessity for changing the current practice? Well, I
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:24:14
can cite you opinion after opinion where they're keeping cases filed under the threshold. And I think probably Chairman Williams can give you cases where he gets removed to federal court.
And you just want your day in court in state court. And you end up fighting forever over what the damages are going to end up being. And it's all speculation and what's punitive and what's it. And bring in experts and spend a fortune to try to just get your case in state court. And the defendants are spending a fortune trying to get it in federal court. And this removes all that. And I think, Mr. Walker, you can talk to any number of lawyers who practice in federal court,
and they'll tell you this is a problem that spends a lot of resources in attorney's times and defendants' resources hiring attorneys just to fight over this issue that could
Speaker 233
1:25:07
be cleared up with this statute. Thank you, Senator. I do feel
your pain on this issue. I do recognize that the non-lawyer members of the committee have gone to sleep now, and are not really. So I want to try to move us along here. We have one
additional lawyer member of the committee who wants to ask the question. And Mr. Nichols?
Speaker 137
1:25:31
I think it's been covered. I'll say I think it has. I
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:25:36
think so, too. Mr. Shepard? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, as I understand it, it appears to me this just clarifies the law in this area. I had this issue actually come up recently where a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against my client defendant and did not allege an amount of damage. It appeared to me that they likely were going to allege an amount in excess of that for diversity jurisdiction. But from the plaintiff and defense standpoint, I didn't know if I could remove it yet.
That's a matter of federal statute. The plaintiff had admitted that they had omitted that, but they were not sure about whether to amend or whether they should non-suit and refile, which they ultimately did non-suit and refile. So to me, it appears to me that your law, that this proposed bill is just clarifying what is probably
already the case, and it gives some guidance both to plaintiffs and defendants as to how the issue of damages will be treated.
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
1:26:30
That's exactly right, and there are some judges, state judges, who do limit, even if you get it.
But there's a lot who don't, and it's a crapshoot. So this would provide guidance for everybody involved and guidance to the federal judges. Thank you, Senator. Seeing no additional questions
Chair
Unverified
1:26:45
from the members. I'm going to go to the audience.
Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill? Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, I'm sorry, I have a motion from Representative Steele. Motion do pass. That's a proper motion. Members, the motion before the committee is due pass on Senate Bill 333. Any more question or discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing Senate Bill 333 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations Senator You have passed Senate Bill 333 Would you like to run I'll let Senator Disman Senator
Speaker 261
1:27:21
Disman has arrived to run his own bill
Members we're going to be at Senate Bill 179 Without objection we're going to continue to go out of order Senate Bill 179 I've got to pull this I thought we might
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:36
be through this I didn't bring anything with me I was just kind of checking to see how he was doing today
I bet we can get you a copy of the bill if you'd like to have a copy Well, I think I can summarize it without one, but what it does essentially is allows the director of the professional bail bonds board or association to issue a subpoena with the permission of the board.
And I understand I have correctly described the bill, so I appreciate
any questions. Thank you, Senator. Members, any questions for Senator Desmayne? Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Who's the executive director
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:28:18
of the professional bail bond company? Representative Williams, I'd like to go ahead and introduce him if you'd
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:28:29
like, and we'll let him take any questions. Absolutely, go right ahead.
Speaker 271
1:28:35
Peters? L.A. Peters, executive director of Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:28:39
Well, that's not what I asked. It says the Executive Director of the Professional Bail
Bond Company. Who's that? That's actually the official name. We have
Speaker 271
1:28:50
a very long name. It's the Arkansas Professional Bail Bond Licensing Board and Company. I think then that needs
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:28:57
to be cleared up here because it looks like we've got two separate entities here. We
Speaker 271
1:29:04
actually have two separate entities that exist. We have the Arkansas Professional Bail Bond Licensing Board, and we have the Arkansas Professional Bail Bond Company.
That's something that was set up years ago in the state, and
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:29:18
for what reason, I can't answer that, sir. Is the Professional Bail Bond Company a state entity or a private entity? They are both state entities, sir. I think that needs to be cleared up. If you've got a different name
than what's showing here, then I think you need to clear it up and then just put us the official name that you're asking for here.
That's my thought. That is the official name.
Speaker 277
1:30:10
So do we appropriate money for two separate entities? No, sir. The appropriation under
Speaker 271
1:30:15
agency 211 is appropriated to the Arkansas Professional Bail Bond Company and Professional Bail Bond Licensing Board.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:30:20
Okay. So it's just one entity then and that and is just the additional part of the
name then? MR. There's not two separate entities? MR. One agency code, sir. MR. Are there two entities here, or is there one entity? MR. Sir,
Speaker 271
1:30:40
I'm not a lawyer. I can just answer that we have one agency code and that that's our official name. MR.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:30:46
Okay. And I think if that's your answer, you're probably okay.
But no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members, any
additional questions? Chair, here's one quick question. If right now you have the authority with board approval, right now the board can issue a subpoena. And now you're asking for the executive director to do it with
board approval. I see very little distinction between those two. Can you explain to me why that distinction and what benefit that will provide to your
Speaker 271
1:31:21
agency? Yes, sir, Representative. happened. My predecessor, a subpoena was issued. The board approved the subpoena and they did so at the end of a meeting. They, of course, left to go to their respective towns. He actually executed and signed the subpoena as the executive director. That was later challenged. It just so happened that particular case was one from another angle, but this is just a clarification that says the executive director can sign one actually executed if the board approves it.
It does not give him any authority otherwise. Okay, I got you. So actual signing can be done by the chairman of the board or the executive director
with approval of the board. I got you. That is correct, sir. Makes sense. All right. Members, any additional questions? Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Slinkert has a motion of do pass as a proper motion. Any question
or discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the committee is passed of Senate Bill 179.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator Disman. You have passed Senate Bill 179. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members. I'm going to ask Representative Powers if he would take the chair so the
chair can run Senate Bill 168 and House Bill 1603.
Bill 168. Thank you, Representative Powers Committee. Senate Bill 168 for Senator Johnson is a simple amendment that removes the position of Chief Probation Officer and Deputy Probation Officer from the Circuit Judge of the 4th Division here in Little Rock in the 6th Judicial District. Most probation functions
will after this bill is passed and goes into effect will be handled
by the DCC and that's agreed to and I would appreciate a
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:33:49
good vote. Thank you, Chairman Williams. Any questions from the committee? Anyone wish to speak for or against Senate Bill 168? What's the
pleasure of the committee? Representative Williams
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:34:05
makes the motion to do pass. Mr. Williams, your motion do pass is recognized. All those in favor say aye. All opposed.
Congratulations, Chairman. Your Senate Bill 168 passes. And we are now running House Bill, tell me which bill you're
running. 1603. House Bill 1603, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Powers. First, House
that was made during the 2009 regular session of the General Assembly, and I must admit that I carried this bill on behalf of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
It was a large cleanup bill that did several things. One of the things that we did that was unintended is we removed Code Section 2714-314 from the code, which had been in effect since 1991, this code provision allowed for law enforcement to fine those who did not register their vehicles. And in removing this section from the code, we
removed the authority of both the state police, county police, and municipal police
to implement fines for those who do not register their vehicles. We know that when you – for those who don't register their vehicles, we often lose tax revenue. Those folks are often most likely not to comply with insurance requirements. And we would like to reinstitute this code section that we inadvertently admitted in the 2009
section back to the code. And I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Any
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:35:45
questions? Seeing none, anyone wish to speak for, or excuse me, Representative Slinker, do you have a question?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:35:55
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep. Williams, were these fines and things already in the previous bill and
where the money went? MR. This section is exactly like it was from 1991 through
2009. The fine was the exact same amount and the money went to the exact same place. It was a mistake and we are putting it right back in the code like it has been since 1991. MS. Okay. Thank you. You may have
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:36:21
answered that and I missed it, but thank you very much. MR.
make clear that this is not a new fee or this is a
fee that was in effect from 1991 to 2009 and that was inadvertently removed and we're just putting that
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:36:38
back. Thank you, Ms. Slinkert. Any further questions? Seeing none, anyone wish to speak for the bill, against the bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Devin Ball All motion to introduce is do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?
Chairman Williams, you have passed House Bill 1603. Thank you, members. Is anyone else here prepared to
run an additional bill? Is there anyone here prepared to run a bill or anyone in the committee prepared to run
a bill for someone who's not
here? Seeing no one else, our committee stands adjourned until Thursday. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB291
HB1493
SB262
SB307
SB333
SB179
SB168
HB1603
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 19
Chair
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 39
Speaker 44
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 50
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 60
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 75
Speaker 69
Speaker 80
Speaker 37
Speaker 22
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 91
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Brad Phelps
Unverified
Speaker 94
Speaker 116
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 137
Speaker 146
Speaker 131
Speaker 171
Speaker 115
Speaker 174
Speaker 178
Speaker 179
Speaker 181
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 207
Speaker 211
Speaker 213
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
Speaker 193
Speaker 217
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 222
Speaker 226
Speaker 229
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 233
Speaker 235
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 257
Speaker 252
Speaker 261
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 271
Speaker 277
Speaker 8
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified