State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Sinister's. He was going to go. CSN. Yeah. He was here saying you. State agencies come to order. The. J. R. one. It's in your package. All right it other years. Okay. If you give me one second the war recognize the pages if you would stand up. But are they Senator you're more solemn. Introduce yourself. File from. In. We'll for. For. It was also. Thank you all for being here. We are hearing Constitutional amendments today Once. This hi fifteen. If you would just introduce both both the US senator sure cells and you're recognized okay I think there's some other people want to testify for this bill senator Bryan king District twenty eight. My name is Josh Silverstein I'm a professor of law at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law but I'm here only in my individual capacity I'm not testifying on behalf of the school. Thank you senator you're recognized thank you Mr chairman thank you means committee of former representative Dan Republican representative Dan Greenberg many of you it's been around Dan very well and how brilliant he is and so I've had a long relationship with Dan and this is something that we of have been very passionate about for several years for a wax and maybe even some decades but the constitution amendment and S. R. one reformer resistant process for the state legislature currently or redistribute process is under control the governor Attorney General the secretary of state this proposal is that each of the three officials could appoint three representatives and produce redistricting plan for the state legislature one important part of this proposal is following new rules and standards as to be neutral as possible everyone in Arkansas as interest in neutral and nonpartisan redistricting I think that we all. Know that there is a possibility that outside groups over the next couple years are going to try to minute constitution their own rejection proposal I've seen reducing prose I thought the word not crafted is lacking as I would like and I have seen reducing proposal that I thought were may be of more slanted one reason I propose this measure is the is to give a better reducing plan so we can resist possibly bad reduce your complaints or ones that we may not be the best interest of Arkansas I want to say something about the timing of redistricting an extradition is going to take place about eight years from now that's for election cycles in the future it's very difficult for us to determine where we will be in eight years from now that is why reducing form should be done now and so we cannot and will not take our personal interest an account if it becomes harder and harder to take it to harder to avoid taking personal interest in an account this is one of the several reasons that if we delay action we are more likely to face pose an election on a districting plan from an outside group I don't think it's necessary for me to walk through all eight pages bill but I would draw your attention to pro section eight starting. Page six this section describes the factors the commission would have to used to draw the line that it describes the factors that the commission would be prohibited using this is the heart of proposal so with that I'll turn it over to. Thank you chairman and Senators. As senator king just explained Astor one would create an independent districting commission creating such a commission would substantially in United state elections from the deeply harmful practice of political gerrymandering the United States Alexx most legislators Vice single member districts those districts are typically created by elected officials the traditional criteria for drawing such districts include equalizing the population of each district which is required by the U. S. constitution respecting city and county borders continuity which is just a fancy word meaning all parts of the district have to be connected and compactness meaning districts should have simple shapes but keep all parts of the district close together. No gerrymandering is the process of creating districts to advantage a particular group an election rather than focusing primarily on traditional districting criteria and political or partisan gerrymandering occurs when part of boundaries are drawn to aid a political party gerrymandering undermines the right to vote by making it more difficult for some citizens to elect officials that represent their views on her political gerrymandering the votes of the minority party have less weight in elections now the purpose of elections is for voters to select their representatives but gerrymandering constitutes representative selecting their voters government officials decide which subsets of the population may vote in which races partly or largely mooting elections the voting is a fundamental right under both the US and Arkansas constitutions but partisan gerrymandering undermines this right based on a person's political affiliation making gerrymandering inconsistent with the democratic principles embedded in our federal and state constitutions amend the law was adopted providing that Republicans must pay twenty percent more in taxes than Democrats or the Democrats are only entitled to free speech six days of the week rather than seven or the Republicans are only allowed six jurors when charged with a crime where is Democrats are entitled to twelve such discrimination on the basis of party is precisely what gerrymandering does political gerrymandering is equivalent to a law providing that minority party votes are only with ninety seventy or even fifty percent of majority party votes that gerrymandering has a long history in this country but it's reached epidemic proportions in the last two decades because of advances in computers and data collection which makes it easier to draw districts that maximize the advantage of one party consider just two examples in twenty sixteen only thirty three of the four hundred thirty five positions in the federal house of representatives we're. Decided by a margin of under ten percent all of the remaining house races were land slides where the result was essentially dictated before anyone had cast a single ballot the average margin of victory in Congress that year was thirty seven point one percent a figure more consistent with elections in Russia North Korea The New Democracy like ours in twenty twenty my other example that we're twelve competitive congressional districts in Texas but after redistricting there were a mere two only two out of thirty eight Texas house races and twenty twenty two were decided by less than ten percent on competitive districts reduce or eliminate incentives for elected officials to compromise with the other side because the greatest threat to their jobs from within their own party namely a primary challenge deep red and blue districts also reduce turnout why vote if the result is ordained by the district map political gridlock in the deep frustration most Americans have with our political system are heavily driven by gerrymandering it is thus not surprising let polls consistently find that the vast majority of Americans of every political stripe strongly oppose the practice now how do we eliminate gerrymandering we bar the fox from guarding the hen house we remove politicians from the process of creating their own electoral districts and that's exactly what senator kings proposed constitutional amendment would do the commission under his amendment is charged with creating legislative districts for the state house and Senate using only traditional districting criteria and S. J. R. one expressly bars the commission from considering political factors such as data about partisan affiliation and the impact of new boundaries on incumbent legislators multiple American states from across the political spectrum employee independent commissions including Alaska Arizona California Colorado Idaho Michigan Montana New York and Washington and the same is true in other countries with established democracies that elected officials Vice single member districts such as the United Kingdom can. Added to New Zealand Australia India and Mexico if independent districting commissions work in all those places there's no question such a commission will be successful in Arkansas thank you very much. Let me add Mr chairman members committee so I was involved politics for these committee for over thirty years and so I've seen gerrymandered redistricting happened on all sides and it's just a process to try to make an independent fair decision if we cannot make an independent and fair decision on how the lines are drawn and then had we expect the process to go right. For after that so with that we taking questions another some other people want to testify Rickwood Klay for the for the bill go ahead senator flowers. So. If the board of apportionment right now. Is the governor. Secretary of state. The AG. They're going to choose. Three individuals each. Under this proposed bill. What's to say. That they will. use politics. In their selection. Of the three choices that they. So the amendment specifically identify certain criteria for who can serve on the commission there's to be one lawyer that has to be one person with expertise in in mapping science but most importantly what the amendment says who cannot serve anyone who's been involved in politics over the last couple of years and after you serve on the commission you're restricted from participating in campaigns are donating to politicians for a few years after you leave now I think you're right senator flowers one thing I didn't say in my initial remarks is no process will completely remove politics that's an impossibility where humans were flawed there's gonna be some politics but what the independent distributor commissions have been shown to do both in other states and internationally is reduce the level of politics and so at the very least this proposal will be a significant improvement it will be perfect nothing can be perfect in this context. Next question I have. Concerns. Hello. The. Population shift. In Arkansas. Has become. So that south Arkansas. Has fewer. Residents. So how. Okay. I'm just trying to. These allies. How is that going to make a big difference. I'm from Southeast Arkansas. I have parts of. Thanks six counties. Now. And I guess the last two. Will. I think I've been here for. Three redistrict. Thank you. Measures. In each time. My district just gets larger. So. How does that. Benefits. Well I mean are we. I mean it I think Arkansas is kind of unusual like that. May be parts of Texas you have large areas with Texas has more population. I don't know if he says they have an independent commission I don't think they do. But. Thank you gave some examples and we just went over my head I don't know what stage you mention. But. How do you get. A resolve we're the population shifts so much. A couple things first to reiterate the states were Alaska Arizona California Colorado Idaho Michigan Montana New York and Washington and I start with your last question first. Basically every state in the United States has urban areas rural areas and exurban areas that are kind of between those two and those populations are always shifting you're exactly right Senator. The Supreme Court has ruled correctly in my view that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that every person get equal vote this is the long standing phrase one person one vote so was population shifts every ten years states are obligated by the constitution to redraw districts to deal with those changes and these types of shifts are happening in all fifty states so Arkansas is actually not different in this respect from any of the states I just identified now one of the things you know to that's really important is that you're in a more rural areas you have multiple counties. And so the idea of respecting political boundaries isn't as important in your district perhaps as it might be in some other places where there's a fewer number of representatives representing the counties and so the idea is we want to try to respect political borders but that's only one factor among many we're going to try to look at keeping the shapes close together keeping the shapes connected to each other and so all of those factors are put together and the independent commission tries to balance all of those concerns so we have no choice but to redo the districts every ten years we have to under Supreme Court understanding of the constitution what this amendment does try to make it so that when we do that it's the fairest possible. If you look at page six there's there are some things that they're supposed to of population equality any optical federal civil rights laws of aborting the Division of cities and counties in two thousand eleven when redistricting happen the small town about Pena which has about three hundred people because of gerrymandering had three state senators. And to state representatives. So you know that's what we did this law and represent Greenberg we can get you in touch with him he can give you some better answers to because he's the primary author this bill you know one thing it it also does is the communication part I mean right now there could be a lot of verbal communication if you look at paid six online five of a member of the commission or a member of the commission staff's receives verbal communication on how the state should be reapportioned for Senators represented both senators and represent the membership shall document the communication riding so those people drawing the map are going to have to have everything documented that people can see there be no verbal communication is to go in there and say Hey I want my district drawn for this or that so I think represent Greenberg in the the professor here you know kind outlined that but you know we outline things that cities and counties Should be are kept together as much as possible. Senator Dodson. Thank you Mr chair You said something in just five hundred here on page five. Lines twelve through fifteen where you said that one of these individuals appointed to the commission would be prohibited from. Participating and contributing to campaign running for state or federal elected office during her his or her way setting up the rock right on. Anyway bottom line prohibition how does that. I guess in your mind How's that not violating their free speech rights under the first amendment to the United States constitution seems being drug conflict to me well remember that constitutional rights can be waived and there are all sorts of circumstances in which people surrender portions of their constitutional rights for some purpose people join the military do people to serve in the civil service DO in many contexts so this is actually reasonably consistent with our long standing practice of putting people in positions that need to be non partisan judges generally are prohibited from speaking out on political issues even though that's a core first amendment speech yet judges give up that right as well essentially when they joined the judiciary so this is consistent with all of those different examples. We also passed a two year ban on lobbying I mean there's some other things I mean he mentioned about the judge's current you know spring Court justices they cannot they can attend our meetings but they can't make of political contributions so we already have that and state in some areas as probably. While at their first amendment rights as well but other judges so I would think they would be raising questions about that Mr chairman were not taken we're just hearing testimony today correct so I mean I will step out another some other people testifying to a we got some others that to a and if anybody has any questions and in. Questions from the committee I think somebody else wants to be but representative Greenberg will be available in to discuss with each one of you about this is the primary author so. Or at the thank you very much thank you we have to do speak for the. Senator Kroll I make a motion that we limit them to four minutes of testimony sessions don't let that motions or second. Second all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. Thank you the. Just. Yeah. Brady. If you introduce yourself and you're recognized for. Thank you Mr my name is Brady shires I'm speaking as a private citizen and a professional election cartographer I like to speak in support of S. G. R. one and why this amendment outlined is good policy as it relates to redistricting and not making. Perhaps the most consequential aspect of this amendment is the codification of redistricting principles into our constitution. As as a sense now the board of apportionment can create their own criteria for how to redraw legislative districts and apply specific weight to them while some of these criteria are legally mandated such as equal population and respect and compliance with the voting rights act in the Fourteenth Amendment some however such as compactness and minimizing the splitting of political subdivision's holds less weight. Because these criteria are informally created whichever administration or party is in power during times of redistricting could adjust or modify these criteria and their importance as they see fit. Codifying these criteria into our constitution ensures equal output application and fairness regardless of who's in charge. Codification also means of these criteria must be more strongly applied in here too unfortunately the current system fails many Arkansans especially those in our rural counties. The University of Arkansas roughly forty one percent the state's population listen real quick Brooke lives in rural counties and in the past I guess many of those will County saw double double digit decline in population with this means that there are fewer and geographically larger rural districts in my professional opinion the past redistricting cycles cause more harm than good for these communities and give you a few examples in several instances small and medium sized municipalities so were split between several of districts use include Fairfield Bay a town of just over two thousand people was split between three districts towns like magnolia Walnut Ridge Green Forest for city and several more were also split. During this comment period there were several local elected officials who spoke on the opposition to the small communities being split but those are concerns largely fell on deaf ears split communities especially those in rural communities a result in less effective government and their overall representation gets diluted. lastly I'd like to commend senator king for including stipulations that several members appointed to the board have an expertise in cartography mathematics and law redistricting is a very data intensive process and has only become more complex with the rise of specialized GIS software I firmly believe an expert will almost always produce a better product than someone who's not legally sound and responsibly drawn districts benefit both the legislators and their constituents alike this is good policy and I would urge the committee to support SCR one thank you thank you are there any questions. Same nine presenter testimony. The William. As introduce yourself and your master my name is bill Kaski in the Director of the Arkansas public policy panel and the citizens first Congress it's good to be with you this morning thank you our organization is been working on redistricting reform for number of years and in twenty nineteen we commissioned a report by professors House Nick in Haiti from S. I'm sorry from at Arkansas tech to do report for us that looked at how redistricting happens in Arkansas and compare it to other states and highlight some of the challenges that come from the Arkansas model and highlight some reforms that have been successful in other states our report deeply support center king's proposal and the professor covered a lot of the same points is released streamline some of what I was going to say for you basically partisan redistricting invariably creates conflicts of interests is you can imagine whether somebody Democrats or Republicans and gerrymandering and erosion of public trust are to the core outcomes again regardless really of what entities doing it in such a political way the four core problems are again the professor covered all these biased representation with the voices of minorities or the political minorities are ethnic minorities are diminished uncompetitive elections where primaries become the de facto election growing political party polarization where if the primary is the only real election it drives us to the to the edges of where our party stand Mostar Kansans most Americans agree on far more than we disagree on but our parties are not in line with where the public is and as a result of that we have an erosion of public trust in the whole political process political participation and lastly the Arkansas model is particularly vulnerable. to costly legal challenges because the hell vague our criteria are. the reforms in other states have been the most successful have been independent redistricting commissions again like what's being proposed less partisan and the other is spelling out more specific criteria for how the district shall be created which leaves less wiggle room we we did submit comments on the twenty twenty one redistricting model and as that was adopted and we had several concerns with the response without really even getting into the yes so much of the substance the current redistricting split many communities and there was never an explanation given as to what criteria the the registrant commission was seeking when they overrode the criteria of keeping a committee contact name that gave no response to any comments that I'm aware of that's certainly not to ours and many of our partner organizations that submitted comments and we think they should the comments really weren't even considered the deadline for comments happened the minute before they adopted the maps and so they never even considered ones that came in eight diluted minority voters and by cracking a minority populations and a number of ways and so so that we strongly support center king's proposal as a as a way to solve a lot of these problems we think Arkansas voters would enthusiastically support. Thank you Sir any questions Senator Payton thank you Mr this question is probably more directed at center king but I didn't have the question when he was at the table so if you can answer it feel free to otherwise the answer when he closes but the top of page three. Where you replace the language the stricken at the bottom of page two on the senatorial districts. There's nothing in this paragraph this is that the district would be. The word is contagious. So in the old language it required that the districtbe continuous. And in this new language I'm not saying that so I mean I think it's important I think the spirit of the bill is that it would be. More contagious than what they are right now. but. I'm not seeing it in the language so maybe. Where one or two. So it makes it part of the formula but the. Do you think that actually requires. This is shall consider that doesn't mean that they. No words doesn't mean it's not compelling them to make sure skin to jewel it just says they shall consider that. The are There is more. We. you know city council I mean it makes it this is actually what represent green first put in here is makes it actually where the districts to flow together and make sense of the week I think any reasonable person would arrive at that conclusion I just know sometimes from lawyers and judges get together things don't. I'd like I'd like to see like somehow like in the old language that it demanded that it be continuous well from what I understand that would mean not provided. I mean we'll get you in touch with you know represent Greenberg yes okay we'll get you in touch with them and and talk to him but also under the language we had cities like Alpena which at less than three hundred people that at three state senators and to state reps and and a bunch of other stuff so to my district has been I'm not. Resistor read this post started considering support it so I think we have a crass Republicans and I just to think that things need to be fair and represent Greenberg I think is put together pretty good amendment to try to constrain things down to make it as fair as possible not anything's going to be perfect this professor mission but that I'm close to it unless you have anymore questions from. Three other questions. C. nine the close the bill. Appreciated presentation of the Next one is. S. J. R.. Two. You are present as J. R. or who is a nonstate you. Okay. I'll be really brief be all nice because many questions you want but this bill seeks to provide a means for recall of an elected official many states have this and Arkansas doesn't but sometimes you know we're like people who find out they're not what they promised to be or or something comes up and you discover that you've elected a scoundrel it would take a huge. Effort to meet the requirements of this bill he would be twenty five percent. Of the number of people that voted in the last gubernatorial election within whatever district the the elected officials in. To sign a petition. And then it would go on Alexion cycle and and the the Bill prescribes you know all of the logistics on how to make that happen if it's a statewide office. Like governor lieutenant governor the seven constitutional offices of course We built into this. Proposal the fifty county rule. At least ten percent in them in at least fifteen counties. And a total of at least twenty five percent of the statewide gubernatorial vote from the last election so it's a it's a very high threshold to meet I think somebody would have to do something very egregious to the constituents but tile with enough. Momentum and effort it would be possible to recall and the list is on page two of all the. Offices that would affect. And I'll stand by for questions. Your questions. Seeing none of those anybody signed up to speak for against thank you thank you Sir. This J. R. three. This J. R. for junior Tucker. The shift you're recognized thank you Mr chair members of this is an open primaries constitutional amendment. And It's not the first time a file that but I'm to keep the phone every time until we referred out so long as people continue set me back I believe that partisanship is one of the the greatest threats to democracy in the United States because it causes the fight about. Things that we should fight about in my opinion and it's not unlike what Senator came was was talking about earlier. When there is also gerrymandering of of political districts and and on the I'll just use Congress as an example when you have a situation we have four hundred thirty five congressional districts and how many competitive races that we have every election cycle forty something like that that means we have almost four hundred congressional districts were it's not competitive from a partisan standpoint what ends up happening is that all the races are decided in the primaries and when that's the case and this is for this is a both sides issue when that's the case your political incentive is to not get beat on the French rather than not get beat in the middle so when you're governing you have a disincentive to work with people from the other side your political incentives is only to be as extreme as you can be so that you can't be outflanked and again it's that's a both sides issue and so that's that's really a concern that's why you see so much gridlock in Washington because you have four hundred members of Congress who have a political disincentive to work with people on the other side of the aisle then I think that's a problem for the functioning of our of our democracy in and of our country the other up affect of it is. And I'll just use this as an example against both sides issue but I'll I'll pick on my own party if you're living in a district that's a safe democratic seat and your Republican you really have no say in who your elected official is because that election is determined in the primary it's decided before you have an opportunity to cast your vote and so this this would solve both of those issues the way that would work is you show up to vote on primary day you will for whoever you want that's on the ballot no matter what party they aren't and no matter what party you are everyone who's running for a particular offices on your ballot when you show up to vote on primary day the two candidates who get the most votes are going to even if they're in the same party will be on the ballot in November and in that case everyone who votes in November will have a say in who their elected official is no matter whether they're a Democrat living in a Republican district or a Republican living in a democratic district and then you have the the elected official is accountable to everyone who lives in their district not just their primary voters I think a lot of elected officials whether they realize it or not they cater to their primary voters because that's who determines whether they're reelected or not and we really should have elected officials who serve their entire districts not just their primary voters so so that's those are the issues that that this seeks to address other states have enacted this law so we would not be the first but that's that's really the gist of it I don't want to belabor the point or take too much of the committee's time but but that's largely to be happy to take any questions. Senator flowers. Senator Tucker. Without. The passage. The senator kings. What resolution. What how could we not expect. But. One party candidate. On the ballot I think that would end up being the case and a lot of election senator and quite to be to be blunt about it I have a lot of Democrats who tell me they don't like this and the reason is because they're going to be a lot of races in Arkansas where there's no Democrat on the ballot in November there will be two Republicans on the ballot but how does this benefit. How this is accomplished what you're. I think it should go without the passage of of the independent redistricting which also support support that in all fifty states with other democratic states to Republican states without that I think is even more important actually if you have independent redistricting then you're gonna have more districts that are competitive from a partisan standpoint and that might lessen the need for this although I think this would still be good important but without the passage of independent redistricting we're still going to have a lot of one sided districts one way or the other obviously in Arkansas right now they're more one sided Republican districts but there still are one sided democratic districts even in Arkansas and of course there are both sides all over the country course we can only control the election laws in a in Arkansas but you're going to end up you know I still think in in statewide races we probably yeah I mean you might have an anomaly here there I still think we would likely end up with one Republican and one Democrat on the ballot in statewide races and some congressional races and a lot of state legislative races we would we would end up with two Republicans on the ballot that's why I have some democratic friends who don't like this for that reason but I still think it's better for democracy and what's I'm a quote John McCain what's good for America and what's good for democracy is good for my party so that's why support this. Senate. Thank you Mr so you stated that several other states have done this season you know sometimes I'm motivated to something new but for the most part I like something proven do you have any research or data or evidence as to whether or not it made those states less partisan more productive. Better government I mean do you have any of that data or or. I'm it would seem that this is no longer there if they've tried it what's been the result. Well so the state said not to my knowledge our Louisiana California Oregon Washington so the all three west coast states plus lease in Louisiana is a structured a little differently than the way this is within effectively has their primary day in November on the general election day and and then if no one gets fifty they have a run off in December so that's the way it works down there you know it's hard to quantify the data that you're talking about because you don't really have a comparison point you don't know what would have happened in the absence it you know well and I don't live in California or on the west coast but judging from the news reports it doesn't seem to be less partisan than Arkansas. well you know California they tend to have I wouldn't say in California it's a it's a one sided state to write just the other way so on one California either but are I read the news just like you and seems to me like they have more intraparty fights out there than they do between Republicans and Democrats by March. And I thought and and so I I don't know I can tell you. That I've I had a democratic member of Congress. I won't say who but I had it when I was running for Congress in two thousand eighteen at a democratic member of Congress tell me they didn't like open primaries in California So that is kinda proves my point I think so well I'm I'm I would think the evidence would be there that would prove your point. maybe nobody's looked but right if it truly would make it less partisan than there should be some evidence that that would bear that out yeah thank you enough. Thank you senator seems like seems like a it is just pushing the primary back to general. That's not the way I City if you're gonna and I mean it could be the at like that in some cases yes and and but I think that serves an important purpose because then you have everyone at I'm repeating myself a little bit but you have everyone in the district casting a ballot in November whereas you don't in March or may. And you should have we've talked about this this committee you should have more people participating in who their elected officials are in in March or may it's only the primary voters and in November everyone who lives in that district can vote and the by product of that is more people have a say in who their elected official are and second the elected officials is then responsible to everyone who lives in that district and not just their primary voters. I feel like I have a responsibility for everyone anyway well you're a good man senator Johnson. Thank you Sir zero questions. Sing nine thank you for your testimony there's no one signed up to speak for use. Yes. All right. Introduce yourself you're recognized. Again my name is Josh Silverstein I'm a professor of law at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law but I'm here only in my individual capacity I'm not testifying on behalf of the school. I would much prefer this time because Senator Clark did a masterful job explaining the benefits of his proposal. Their two primary reasons to support an open primary like this and each goes to a fundamental aspect of our democracy first open primaries better reflect the will of the voter and second they generally result in better government and I'll talk to Senator Pitsch point about the evidence on the first point jungle primaries better reflect the will of the voters because they encourage more people to vote in primaries the permit crossover voting there are people to pick among all of the candidates in deciding who to vote for it's all go to any example of why saying independent should like this proposal during the primary the independent has to decide and most Americans are now depended one of the democratic primary the Republican primary it's tough decision to make but in an open primary they don't have to pick the kid to participate in everything all together and so let's assume we're dealing as we usually are in Arkansas with red districts we're two Republicans are going to make it through the independent voter actually will preferred that situation as well because they get to vote in the primary and maybe vote Democrat if they leave a little to the left and then when the general election comes they get to choose among the two top Republicans they could decide which of the Republicans they think is best where is without clothes primary they don't get that choice they don't only get to pick one party the other to vote in the primary and then in the general they're stuck between the two extremes which they often don't like so I think that that's one of the real advantages now when it comes to the second issue about whether creates better government. I've done some looking at the literature and in fairness to you senator paid as an academic I always try to be as objective as I can the evidence isn't that strong that is decreased partisanship part of the reason I think that is because it's so new and they're not really people are really used to the system yet I think it's starting to have some positive impacts in California it's going a little bit slower than we would like but I think things are moving in the right direction and I think in the long run open primaries like this will reduce partisanship in those states they started doing a little not as much as someone like me would have hoped but it is moving in that direction and so I think it will work out well especially in the long run that's really all I have unless there are questions from any of you. Thank you Sir. You are close I just add on briefly to what he said I mean it is really a kind of a voter empowerment issue in another way believe it or not I do have Republicans who vote for me and or who want to vote for me and and they'll tell me. At Clarke I look for you on the ballot but I I didn't see you on there and it's because they went they selected Republican primary ballot they did understand that meant they did have a chance to vote for me well if this were to become law you can vote for John Payton for state Senate and then the someone else a Democrat for county sheriff or you know whatever you want you can vote for whoever you want at any election so that's just an I think another point in favor of so I did mention earlier so just mentioned that now so what without a I'll be close thank you Sir. But. Guardian or an S. J. R. five yes Sir. Thank you Mr Clarke Tucker Senate district fourteen. This is Este are five. You know two years ago we made an effort at and making some bold statements with our constitutional amendments and and we begin legislation went over three the ballot if we wanted to do something that wasn't quite such a bold political statement that this would be a candidate this is something that I think we can feel good about it so we're a bill I think it would pass overwhelmingly like a lot of bills down here do those typically are the ones that make the news but but a lot of good bills down here passed unanimously so what this does what I'll start with this background in the in the nineteen seventies following rage rising energy prices. Congress enacted a program called low income home energy assistance and what it does is provide assistance toward electric bills for income qualifying citizens every state has an agency that administers the distribution of these funds and again this is for an electric utility electric utility such as inter inter G. vigorously regular lobby Congress to sustain support for this program on the energy side it's it's a nationwide program there's no federal program for water even the water is arguably equally or even more precious commodity than electricity Congress to allocate one time money to states for assistance with watered with the art of funds in twenty twenty one in every state but Arkansas every state but Arkansas has a program like this for income qualifying citizens for water the reason Arkansas does not is because article twelve section five of the Arkansas constitution prohibits the allocation of money by the municipality or county for any purpose without receiving for consideration for so in two thousand fifteen the legislature referred out an amendment that the chamber was in support of that allowed municipalities to give money to their local chambers if you all remember that and that was because of the same provision in the state constitution that was really a narrow exception that the legislature referred out fifteen and passed in the general elections in sixteen and it it doesn't it would not permit. this type of of water assistance for income qualifying or cans so as J. R. five would permit this program it would allow Arkansas to be the fiftieth state to allow the enable water utilities to have of programs to assist their low income customers the federal government covers this for electricity as I mentioned for the entire country all other forty nine states have a program for water like this so it would it again as I say this is this is something that we could feel good about referring out and I I think would you know do very well at the ballot if it were to be one of the ones that came out. What to. What are the other states we're we're we're is or funding mechanism is in on the local level or the water utilities are are the ones who administer that and so they they kind of figure out how to manage it on their own is my understanding they they can create those programs for assistance not be ill ask in the state right allocation right that's my understanding. Three other questions. See none the jury may speak for against this bill. No closure bill I'm good I appreciate it thank you Mr chairman thank you members thank you. This J. R. six. This year or seven percent are. Eighteenth. Nine. it's Gilmore. The dog or any. SJR ten. Six senator Wallace come on a. Well it's just introduce yourself and you're recognized. Mr chairman. State senator Dave Wallace District nineteen. This bill is Out victims rights. And that's the the title victims bill of rights. We go through life in all we hear about or the. Right to the criminals. This bill. Which is already been passed in nineteen other states. Is about the rights of the victim. We want to give the victims are right to speedy trial. Which require the courts to balance of victims rights to a speedy trial against the defendant's rights those speedy trial and to give them equal weight. Want to have the victim to have the right to be present at all crucial points after charging. Of the criminal. The victim. Will and should have the right to refuse attempts of a respite intimidation and release of information that will put their. Safety at risk far too often now the criminals will use the legal system against the victim. Sometimes even almost putting the victim on trial. This will allow the victories to receive restitution. Before the state fees and costs are paid. And bottom line is it will give the victim the same constitutional rights that are equal to that of the defendant. Members with that I'll stand by for your questions. During questions. Go ahead Senator flowers. Senator Wallace do we need a constitutional amendment this could pass legislation well that evidently. Senator flowers we would do. Then that's based on the. Expert opinion of BLR and. In others. A person not qualified to answer that question. I mean it I think we've done a lot of stuff. In the way of. Legislation that. For other people. You know centers on page three. Releasing the victim's home address we. Check. Prosecutors home addresses we. Don't even allow it to be disclosed on voter. Registration. Rolls so I don't. I don't know what we would need a constitutional amendment. For some of this Senator flowers I've I've. Unfortunately don't have the knowledge to answer your question I just I know this has flow through bill are in this is how it was written I do know it has passed in nineteen other states. Very similar language. As a part of their constitution. That that I do not know. Okay thank you. This may be a discussion item the. For sure Tucker and Senator flowers. Probably this is been administrated by the rules of the court. Much of this. Am I wrong in saying that. Well. I think a court can. Prohibit. Defendant's. From contacting The alleged victims. And can restrain. Did a lot of things and then we have a victim's. Assistance program. We're. A. Victims' make application. To Get restitution. For damages that they sustained. And then we just passed a. Bill out of committee the other day that. Put the. Restitution to a victim. The four. Before the. Funds in the call court costs to pay. I just. I mean I I like the things that are in here. That would. About the. Victim's right to a. ET trial. I mean I haven't re if this in detail but I don't I don't understand where that's coming from. I can only say that I believe that when this. With you bill on foreign was vetted by a bill or that they would have come back and told us. They could be done without a constitutional amendment. The president Senator Payton. Thank you Mr and. So I'm not a lawyer I'm just looking at it. In. Reasonable terms many of the criminals. Rights are secured in the constitution. So for rope with the victims bill of rights at the same level as the criminals bill of rights then I could see why that would need to be in the constitution. a make could be accomplished or part of it through code but. I mean just it seems reasonable to me the. If the accused has rights that are protected by the constitution and we and we want to give the same way. To rights that we will recognize of the victim it would be done in the constitution. Go ahead Senator just for what it's worth and I I'm just going to read through this in detail for the first time I think probably ninety percent of this could be done in code Maybe ten percent of it couldn't and it has a couple provisions about the rules of criminal procedure and that's definitely one that cannot be done code because it would violate the separation of powers. Also there are times where the agree or disagree that. The legislature makes an effort to put something in the constitution that's already in code obvious examples from last session we have a religious freedom restoration act on the books in in statute and Senator Rapert sponsored a constitutional amendment had it put in the constitution just because he felt it should be there course people voted that down last fall but the point is you can still put something in the constitution even if you can also put it in code so you know I don't speak for senator Wallace or or anyone who's worked on this but my guess is. For a two fold number one is there maybe I thank you senator flowers right I think most of this could be done to code but maybe not all of it and then maybe Senator Wallace and whoever just feels like it's important enough to that that should be in the constitution those are just my thoughts. Go ahead Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr I mean I I'm I'm trying to process. Disinterment and try to. I mean thanks okay heard before there's a lot in here that I like the look of and everything like that I think much of it could probably be done by code without having having a constitutional amendment But. There's some parts in here that I'm not entirely sure how they conflict with a at a basically a defendant they're not actually. Benedek used of the crime. Alleged that they haven't been convicted of a crime yet and their rights of due process and and so Malai I'm. Charlie for protecting victims and victims rights. I'm not sure how this conflicts with the the accused rights and making sure that they have the right to due process and and goes into the system in in I'm sorry go ahead so so I mean that I don't know that there's a question in there necessarily is just. This seems like it's a it could be a really big deal and if we put this in the constitution there's no way to change it if we got it wrong very easily so where if it was in code the parts of it that could be put in code I think it might be a little bit more You know adjustable as we learn more things and how might conflict over time and then get some basis over time and bring it back to maybe put stuff in the constitution that the the parts that need to be there for the constitution but it that's just come I thought like I said I'll take feedback but I that's the one I field mentioned earlier this is not for all. scissors for violent crimes or for crimes of a sexual nature. Transaction to point that out yes I saw that in there I mean even even if it is somebody that. Is the accused until they're convicted. There I mean they have rights as well and so I can't pre judge somebody before they've gone through the the trial process and been convicted of those crimes. So that's. It sure seems like we do a good job of watching out for those folks it sure seems that we don't do a very good job of what's up for the victims of those crimes. Three other questions the. Yes. I guess. I'm conflicted. Because we live in a nation where you're. Innocent until proven guilty and that's why those rats are given in the constitution. And. We have two concerning coming upon us to have that. In our harsh for the victim. But there's that's why there's prosecuting attorneys and. And hello there's a burden of proof in in that upon you know. On the accused the all the accused this is innocent until until found guilty through the court system. And. I plan on reading this thoroughly and and Appreciate the Date the The Amendment in. My clothes yes. When you read over this. Stop thank you but the victims. Stop and think about the ability of. The person who committed. These acts against the victim. Of their ability to actually use. Our legal system against the victims. This this. Law which is called Marsy's law in other states came about. Because the young. Lady was murdered. For. Murder. Was originally initially release was out on bail. Yes doctor before. And then he has the ability to go stand next to the mother of the victim. In a shopping center. The following week. The criminals. I unfortunately been protected. Our society. In recent decades. Our victims have not. So I believe that with you and I appreciate you all allow me to talk with you. US the. The guess we'll go back to S. G. R. six. Right. Mr chairman looked as permission for docile Standridge moment help president Senator six all right. Introduce yourself you're recognized Alan Clark Senate district seven. Josh Silverstein a professor of law at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law and we hear speaking in my individual capacity not for the university. As J. R. six makes two changes to the law of sovereign immunity first eliminate sovereign immunity for the state of Arkansas and all of its instrumentality used in cases involving constitutional rights second permits the state legislature to waive sovereign immunity for any other type of claim. Before explaining why this would be an extremely positive change let me briefly note with S. T. R. six does not do it does not address the immunities of individuals or corporations that are acting on behalf of the state. Sovereign immunity is a holdover from that era when most countries were monarchies the legal basis for sovereign immunity was as follows because the monarch created the courts the monarch is superior to the courts unless the monarch is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is not a monarchy nor any of the individual states including Arkansas the courts in this country do not owe their existence to a king the legislature or the executive instead the courts are co equal branch of government created by the federal and state constitutions accordingly the historical basis for sovereign immunity no longer exists moreover there are no persuasive modern policy justifications for sovereign immunity in fact sovereign immunity is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law due process of law and the concept of the bill of rights modern societies use litigation to resolve disputes and vindicate rights if you are a human being is injured by someone else or the one of their contracts is breached that human may sue for in in court for damages if a corporation or partnership or a non profit or some other artificial entity either injures you or is injured they may sue in court to recover for damages but if the state of Arkansas or subdivision of the state which is a commissioner university injures you or breaches a contract with you you cannot sue in court to recover your damages instead you're consigned to the claims commission and then ultimately the legislature itself. There's a fundamental principle of American law that states that no person should be a judge in his or her own case that is exactly what happens when a person sues the state of Arkansas for money the legislature itself which is at the apex of our state government ultimately decides if the injured person is entitled to relief from the government that is inconsistent with the principles of due process that underlie our justice system means that sovereign immunity makes it far harder for citizens to enforce their fundamental legal rights such as freedom of speech freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms. To make this analysis somewhat more concrete consider this hypothetical suppose in Arkansas citizen enters into a contract. With the state of Arkansas and with the nation of Germany for the provision of business services here in Arkansas suppose further that Arkansans Germany both the fault under contractual obligations this citizen could sue Arkansas I'm sorry could to Germany in Arkansas state court because of the commercial activities exception to the foreign sovereign immunities act but to cover for the breach of contract by Arkansas the citizen would have to resort to the claims commission in other words current law makes it easier for a citizen of this state to a foreign country Arkansas state court sentenced to the state of Arkansas itself I submit that simply does not make sense sovereign immunity has no place in a modern constitutional democracy like Arkansas or the United States and the United Kingdom which is the source of the American doctrine of sovereign immunity a limited such immunity in nineteen forty seven a number of American states have also either limited a limited sovereign immunity in whole or limited in part especially the area of tort actions so would briefly addressed to counter arguments to S. J. R. six the first is that it will increase litigation that's a feature not a bug as I said litigation is how we resolve disputes it's perhaps the most important mechanism for protecting fundamental rights and keeping the government check the alternative is simply that rights can be violated within impunity there should be more litigation against the state because right now there's not. The second argument against weakens weakening sovereign immunity is that will hold the citizens of the State financially responsible for the wrongdoing of their governor but one six are the government but once again that's a feature not a bug in a constitutional democracy government officials represent and are chosen by the people this means all public employees or agents of the citizens of the state another fundamental principle of American law is that if an agent commits a wrong the principal is responsible S. T. R. six extends this concept to wrongdoing committed by government officials that violate constitutional rights and it permits the legislature at its discretion to extend the concept in other contexts such as with statutory rights if a state official enters a person or breaches a contract on behalf of the state rectifying that wrong should come out of the taxes that every our cans and pace moreover holding all government officials responsible including me as a professor at a public university creates incentives for our Kansans to more carefully monitor our government. If we see too much wrongdoing resulting litigation we can vote to change our elected officials to review such wrongdoing in fact limiting sovereign immunity will almost certainly save our Kansans money because the threat of litigation will greatly decrease wrongdoing by the state wrongdoing that cause a significant financial harm to both the immediate victims and society at large to wrap up litigation as the primary tool for enforcing legal rights thus litigation should be fully available to challenge state wrongdoing just as it it is available to challenge private run doing what they are conservative liberal or somewhere in between you almost certainly believe in government accountability limiting sovereign immunity will help to create for to bring about greater accountability for our government using the best tool ever created to enforce legal rights lawsuits before independent courts and as always I'm happy to answer any questions thank you so much. The. read a are we not a representative Republic United by constitution ratified by independent states. Yes the other with the independence of this yes so sovereign immunity the you sent is ancient. Correct is your individuality engine. Yes Is or independent states agent they are are we still not insured more really the last three hundred years with your personal representative or public we are. We're just getting older at. We are. So. In this we we are self governed through. Absolutely. So these protections are like to. Me soon myself is what I consider. Sovereign immunity. Whenever you're self govern that's what you're doing. Not exactly because we operate in multiple capacities sometimes we act as citizens you dog governmental capacity what we're electing representatives or donating to cont campaign making campaign contributions but other times we're dealing with the state in a commercial capacity where we might do business with the state or we might not even have a relationship with the state at all but get into a car accident with a state official and so when we're operating in those other contacts that is where sovereign immunity creates problems and most importantly the reason why Esther six is written to absolutely eliminate sovereign immunity with constitutional rights is it's in those contexts where it's the citizen acting as an individual against the state and so in those contexts an individual suing the state it's protecting their individual rights when the state is hurting them as individuals not as an indirect part of the government. So is the individual part of the state. When they are paying taxes yes but when their freedom of speech is being violated or their property rights are being violated definitely not. All right thank you any other questions. Seeing none depreciation testimony. Thank you Mr chair. I'm a very pragmatic. Person and sovereign immunity is a necessity for a government. The so that we don't have of lawsuits all the time any lawsuits everything from the highway was built wrong to you name it. But. Let limiting sovereign immunity keeps government officials from being able to just walk over people no one that they can't be said. and this is what this does I think the Supreme Court actually bounce the ball back to us just peers ago of trust to fix this because there are there are limited cases when people ought to be able to sue the state government and that's what we attempt to do with with this amendment this resolution of appreciate of. Consideration for. Thank you. Do you want to run the other one to the seller okay thank you Sir. SJR eleven. SJR twelve. SJR thirteen. SJR fourteen. It's J. R. fifteen. Fourteen yes. I don't I don't think it's fielding and really. STR fifteen thank you senator Kaine resolver uns fifteen. The. You don't want to twenty down. Yes. Thank you Mr as chair twenty is is a shell I don't have any language currently in there but If it is something the committee wants to consider Hi there is a I forget the number of time I had but there's a House. House joint resolution by representative Lundstrum I believe it is that it could be adopted into language adopted into that if if that's something that to the committee is interested in and would refer to making judicial elections partisan. Thank you Sir I guess. We will. Take a recess. See if we can get senator king. I think that'll be our final. The joint resolution. The what. Okay. Yeah the map in the. Well. Thanks. This is the. Yes again with the amendment. Close shot that other mac off. The. Go ahead thank you Mr chairman members committee of this amendment basically I will explain once we get the bill is basically senators as you know we have approval of the appointment process this would actually if you look at the map it would break out the approval process would be limited to the county of residence that you're in so as for example senator Dotson over here I would not be as we have the current process I would not be built in to prove his commissioner he would not be built in to compete. Approved mine it would be just simply for those senators in that district that do your residence so for example senator Dotson there in Benton county Senator Hester senator Bryant Senate letting you know senator Patty and senator Boyd would be the ones to approve. So. It would be the county of residence it County residents where the commissioner is appointed at. Instead of a state wide like we. Is that management that is the member. Motion to not by Senator Tucker. A second all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you senator You're welcome to present the bill as amended thank you Mr chairman thank you means committee this is about ending disproportional representation within our Highway Commission basically the way it was set up in previous constitution we have five highway commissioners we have four for permit one from each congressional district in one at large will naturally can do the math one of the that large is will be from a certain area. So that area will have basically to highway commissioners representing them and it just has this report a representative think of this if we had five United States congressman but yet we had to from Pulaski County and in three from the rest of the state well that's not what I would call it is you know proportional representation we have four congressional districts based on population so this would just break apart that were we could actually have designated districts if you want to go through the bill. No map can be perfect but if you start on page two. the commissioner shall be appointed and we list all the counties you also have a map here. With population in the number of miles no no map can be perfect I mean we know that we can correctional maps we talk about your man redistricting before basically this was some discussion with several different people to try to come up with a map that can kind of follow what we were talking about in the congressional is you know following of similar interest areas if you look at for example up in the northwest corner of senator Dotson obvious you're bitten County yeah and see a bit Marcia Crawford so you have the I. forty nine corridor right down there that links that up of if you look at the north central area of we're Senator Johnson in our from the highway have highway four twelve you also have highway sixty five highway seven highway twenty three you have some other highways there that have some shared interest with the same counties. Senator flowers from the delta area if you look in her district it is you know. Pretty the row crop delta area agriculture minister the same you know much the interest the same counties they would have a designated commissioner. Pulaski County selain Faulkner was Senator Clark now we will acknowledge that there are some population differences obviously but remember our founding fathers set up our Congress that we have one body based on population one body is based upon equal representation of each state so as a state like Arkansas are United States center if we did it on population would always come from Texas. We were not I had a senator prior we would not have had a senator cotton we would not have had a senator Bozeman we would not have to senator bumpers if we did everything on population so this kind of breaks apart so if you look at the south west part of the state with the lowest part of population compared to bid in Washington County but if you look at the number highway miles. The other thing is if you look at the three districts with have less population their number one economy is agriculture well the state's ag you know Kanemi number one is agriculture so. We just tried to were I just tried to make a map in trying to draw each area were each commissioner representative as best possible where they have shared interest at and share communities. Of. This would the second part if you look at the blind to this would end the current highway commissioners if you look to the governor just appointed a gentleman here the governor will get at least another appointment so in reality this would only you know probably impact three how we commissioners it's possible they could be reappointed. So we could not draw a map because the current at large and one that is point for the third congressional district is in Washington Sebastian County so obviously was going to impact them anyway with according to this map you would have to in that district so they could also any of the ones that would go off from the previous governor could reapply to be highway commissioners again so this would again. governor Sanders would get to appoint all new five highway commissioners she's gonna get to point to anyway in her term. After they are appointed. They would draw for terms of one withdraw six seven eight nine ten to start stagger there is some discussion with the some people about should we go back to draw the drawing of the term should be more staggered words two four six eight ten. Much like the current system now that that there's somebody going off every two years I think that's a valid point if this one gets traction and I think there's a lot of interest in this bill right now you know I would be amenable to stagger the terms a little different than the six seven eight nine ten terms because if you did that that route you have a five year period that no one goes off and there's some pluses and minuses that that's where we're Senators we have four year terms it's nice that half our body has to set you know is able to serve without being up so you know that is one thing that I would be amenable to this also allows it's been one of the frustration and I don't believe our legislative body has enough impact or influence or decision making in our highway commissioners I do not want to take it away from the governor and do not want to take that but as we have census and redistricting if you look at line four on page three the General Assembly by a three fifths vote of each house should amend the sex subsection so much like redistricting we can change the highway department districts in ten years so it allows a breathable flexible accountability that the legislature is now involved in the highway pardon understand the highway department is extremely critical in deciding our infrastructure and we set it up for a previous constitution that they have a lot of time to meet the take the input third also needs to be a balance. If you go down to section twenty the if this is passed it would go immediately into effect but that the commissioners would not go off until January first and then that's when that gives about a month before the commissioners go off to the point that the governor would appoint the new five and go through the process of selecting new highway commissioners. What's that. So I'm I section our line twenty I'm sorry Page three th. And let me at the at the amendment part of it to re talk about the amendment it was just basically allow. each senator saw senator flowers is in Jefferson County. you know it would allow those senators in those districts would have to vote to approve the highway commissioner just like I mentioned senator Dotson in Benton county washing County Crawford Sebastian would vote to approve their highway commissioner and I think that's just. Pretty common sense because senator Johnson's going to have more of knowledge about the roads and what needs to be done and in his area just like you know. Senator Johnson and I are more connected through highway four twelve in agriculture aspect of it so would you centralizes our selection process rather than the whole state. So. Could you do you think the change you know that amendment process will be based on population ofschool population ships in the future your honor Census I mean it could but that allows a legislature once again I mean of. Senator flowers and myself and senator Johnson were both in house representative or foreign rep House representatives this would allow them to have a say or impact on their highway districts and have a vote every year much like they have on redistricting so I think it allows us is as senators and representatives that highways of how commissioners now it does say that our mom I think at one time we did have ten highway commissioners to from each district I have to I have to double check that's been a few years and since I slept but I did think that we did that at one time I mean that would probably be a good thing to. To notate in here because I mean there there might be a need I mean five people or five districts throughout the state controlling all of that literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars stars um at. It is just if and so I guess. And that was the last question I thought of right as you said that my my other questions I can get to those More along the lines of How does it work after the ten years is up and. The the population shift change I like that you put that in there that it can be modified is it whole counties that have to be put in it doesn't specify that because we never really know but yet on your first part I think that five highway commissioners is a good mix because if you look at it we have to basically century populated areas you have your district up here in northwest Arkansas it in you have Pulaski County and surrounding areas and if you look at you know. Agriculture is very important to Perry County well that's obviously not important Pulaski County in agriculture is very important for Jefferson County but but not Pulaski County so I feel like five commissioners is a good good mix and it allows us to have our state broken apart we can have. You know basically different you know Senator Johnson and I have very different consistencies you know constituents than you do in in Benton County so I feel like five is good the second part your question was again it was is more related to how I guess at the end of the ten years. Kind of like. You know with redistricting for anything The the districts are redrawn do they continue to serve out the ten year term that they're in until that term expires and then there's a new appointment for the new district for the next ten years. I mean since these these terms are really long they are and for good reason I mean highway projects take a lot of the planning and stuff and I understand appreciate that but. If the district changes. After every ten years. Do the the currently appointed when this state in there and till. They're vacancy comes up and then you you you might have the situation where you have two or three. I mean if the the district gets redrawn after ten years you might have a couple that are serving out the remainder of their term you have term doesn't expire once well and I believe we've had that I don't know if if if Robert Moore was going off you used to be in the first district but when you redistricted he was in the fourth district I mean I don't really that I think that possibly happen so what let's say situation let's say and it frustrates not happened but the say Bryan King is appointed highway commissioner for the north central region in Carroll County in in in in a draw at an eight or nine year term or any we have redistricting again and then they change it and they put Carroll County in with you within my term within. So is it immediately and once it was re drawn it would it would end once it's redrawn input in effect if you were didn't live in that district but right now with the population things if we go with this map plus it takes a three fifths vote I didn't make it majority voted put a three fifths vote so sixteen the house twenty one in the Senate so it's going to be a little harder measure to change but not impossible change I feel like sometimes two thirds is too much in different times so we just put three fifths I'm. I'm I'm aware of the I guess the. The the dynamic of how they they shift I just wanna make sure it's clear that. That either they continue in their term or they they're term ends once it's if they no longer live in the district that they're representing I think that happens with congressional terms I'll have to find out for sure to answer questions but you know I talk with Matthew Miller not follow up again if for some reason you know somebody's in Sebastian County in its history drawn I think it works much like occur congressman if a congressman is drawn out of his district in the maps approved in legally held up in that he's no you no longer qualifies for that I'll follow up on that with Mr Miller because this is a constitutional amendment if we If we re if we DO retainer ought still think there's a possibility of us being able to amend and if we don't have a process amend into your your Amendment. Through that change. You would have to put it to amend this you have to put another amendment up and that's what we're trying to avoid is not put this in where it doesn't have to be amended with the we didn't think about that situation and that's why we've already thought about that situation and say Bryan King is appointed in Carroll County the next general Sam lane in twenty thirty one I hate to think about that number anymore it's a holder I get but in that if they redrew the index also care was put in with a different district and I put in with another one and then obviously that terminate but that is what Matthew Miller is a hope is watching this and we'll watch this is force questions when we get everything right but I do think that it is important as legislators to have a state in who are highway commissioners are I think that you know just having a uniform Senator a process that approved every highway commissioner is of. Is good but yet it doesn't centralized I mean for example you know Senator Tucker not represent different districts senator Johnson's senator Tucker very and it allows us to centralized with our issues and everything in our rule nor Central District which has timber forestry agriculture those things highway four twelve that we can better assess that situation and want to drive down to who we want in trying Dr impact that it greatly impacts our constituents just like Senator Tucker here would have the Faulkner County selain Pulaski County area and in certain been county I mean I don't feel like I feel like they like did you to figure out your highway situation in Benton County I just like the idea of having a flexible and have the legislature involved in the process. Thank you I'd I'd just. This is a. Disposal I. I'm not a hundred percent on board with just yet I think there's maybe some some small tweaks need to make to it but trust me I want those tweaks because if I don't have the author of two Constitutional amendments it drives you crazy before you get in the constitution because you can't have a code revision commission. We look at it and so any of those things please email myself and Mr Miller to make sure that we think about all these possible situations out there but I I I definitely like the. The direction overall because it's been a source of frustration I mean when I was on a city council I had more input on what the highways going through town more than I've had in the legislature and ten. This year's here and It's been a a source of frustration contention so I would appreciate your public support of this and be one of the five people that get this bill out. But the please email me though that scenario you Senator you're thinking up because we've got to do that the second part is this does seem to be getting some traction and in legislators seem to like it I think the people back home in your district we'll look at this and say Hey you know I think this could be a good thing the only other thing I think Senator Tucker was in here and I'll say something is been the question of the another possible amendment is the staggering of terms go to a two four six eight term instead of a five six seven eight nine ten terror. So I'm open for that either way can be fine with me. Thank you senator Your call is closed I just need five votes to get this out of committee and then we'll. I feel like it's the most I mean not bragging but I feel like it's the most substantive change that we can make for our system that is the most important for area in our district that is centrally located to our each individual districts and as senator Dotson said as councilman he was had more influence than he does as a senator and I I just don't think that's right. Thank you Sir. We need to. We have. an individual here that can testify would like to test for a. One of the bill. That outside these joint resolution Constitutional amendments. That she might not be able to testify at a later time. If it B. R. I. that one I would like to allow her to do her testimony in. What the bill is that alone Senator Tucker what's the worst. Four twenty six this is on Senate bill four twenty six. It's this is not the because we were trying to get through all the. All the constitutional amendments this morning. And. I'm not comfortable hearing the bill until after we get out of session because because notice but but I'd like this lady that and be able to to speak on the bill. So I know. The just wait until the in less members want the bill in hand. I just I just want to allow the testimony this bill the members want. Is it is on the agenda the yes but it but is not in a folder. But I'm I don't I don't want to hear the bill this morning we can hear it if eleven agreeable this afternoon after we get out as. But she won't she she's got an appointment and will be able to come back. And this afternoon. If it be all right to hear hear the testimony on Senate bill four twenty six. This introduce yourself when you're recognized. Hello I am recall away and Senator Irvin asked me to come speak on behalf of this bill so thank you to her even though she's not here and you guys for allowing me to do that specially because I can't be here this afternoon so like I said I'm a call away I'm a state employee and a half and say graduated college other than a brief stint right did go to the private sector I'm also thirty four weeks pregnant so that's exciting the little baby boy I'm a first of all I am grateful for the four weeks that the state offers new mothers it will definitely help me in my family during this new chapter of our lives I know it is helped numerous other state employee families as well I'm in the past five years since it to become law and I was actually in the conference room when they signed that bill with Senator Irvin and a few of my colleagues in as well so that was really exciting however for weeks is not nearly enough S. the small business I work for here in Little Rock which with less than fifty employees offer double the maternity leave at the state provides doctors do not even clear you to go back to work until six weeks postpartum and that's if everything goes to plan and perfectly twelve weeks of paid maternity leave would be the biggest blessing to state employees and mothers and families the first twelve weeks of the baby's life are crucial times for mom to recover physically and mentally. Twelve weeks of paid maternity leave means a decrease in postpartum depression anxiety which does happen and twenty percent of new mothers it means mothers can focus on bonding in caring for the newborns rather than wondering if they can take more than four weeks off because they can't afford their bills at home. Increasing the paid maternity leave to twelve weeks would be an incredible example of how the state is investing in families and being young I know that that is a huge driver to bring young people into the workforce. Personally twelve weeks at home would be a game changer for us with the current benefits and my vacation and sick leave time I'm planning to take quite a bit of unpaid leave I have to spend those crucial weeks of our baby and I'm just personally asking you to please pass this bill whom was referred to have to choose sorry. Thanks for the bill. Thank you very much for your testimony and I appreciate you being here. And congratulations and hope hope hope it goes well. So members of the. You can see we have the there's Senate bill two seventy five. Senator Hammer has an amendment on that one This to for twenty six Senator king or you want to run any of those other ones. Yeah. J. which one. Here. There is. If. I don't want to make sure that you. Yeah. Sure it's private. So if we have a if we have more members able to be here this afternoon can have that discussion we will also so thank you members and we will recess until after after session.