Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (30)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB495
Act 659
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “enacted. Now why we should oppose Senate Bill 495 is that its goals are fundamentally contradictory. State pr…”
|
TO CREATE THE PROTECT ARKANSAS ACT; TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING SENTENCING AND PAROLE; TO … | Gilmore | Notification that SB495 is now Act 659 |
|
HB1501
Act 507
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1501 Gazaway TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING WHEN A PROSECUTION…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING WHEN A PROSECUTION IS COMMENCED. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1501 is now Act 507 |
|
HB1560
Act 727
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1560 Vaught TO CLARIFY THE LAW REGARDING REPORTS OF CHILD MALTRE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW REGARDING REPORTS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT WITH ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO ARE EIGHTEEN … | Vaught | Notification that HB1560 is now Act 727 |
|
SB390
Act 687
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB390 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND ESTABLISH CRIMINA…”
|
TO AMEND THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATED TO CHILD LABOR VIOLATIONS; AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB390 is now Act 687 |
|
SB405
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB405 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE OFFENSE OF POS…”
|
TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR. | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. SB430 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CHALLENGES TO ELE…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CHALLENGES TO ELECTION RESULTS. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB431
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CHALLENGES TO ELECTION RESULTS. SB431 A. Clark AMENDING ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF A…”
|
AMENDING ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB435
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB435 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW A VOTER APPEARING I…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW A VOTER APPEARING IN PERSON AT A DESIGNATED VOTE … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB437
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB437 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DIS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL … | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB444
Act 771
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BE REFUNDED TO HIM OR HER IF FOUND NOT GUILTY OR ACQUITTED. SB444 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF PA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF PAROLE FOR A PERSON WHO WAS A … | G. Leding | Notification that SB444 is now Act 771 |
|
SB448
Act 772
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB448 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SERIOUS HARM" UNDER TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SERIOUS HARM" UNDER THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013. | C. Penzo | Notification that SB448 is now Act 772 |
|
SB455
Act 774
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATION OF THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR. SB455 G. TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS STATE COUNCIL FO…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS STATE COUNCIL FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR ADULT … | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB455 is now Act 774 |
|
SB469
Act 775
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…field INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION. SB469 C. Tucker TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME IN ARKANSAS; TO ESTABLISH…”
|
TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME IN ARKANSAS; TO ESTABLISH THE VIOLENT CRIME CLEARANCE GRANT FUND; TO … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB469 is now Act 775 |
|
HB1408
Act 505
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PERSON WHO WAS A MINOR WHEN HE OR SHE COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. HB1408 M. Brown TO CREATE THE UNIFORM EASEMENT RELOCATION ACT. HB1…”
|
TO CREATE THE UNIFORM EASEMENT RELOCATION ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1408 is now Act 505 |
|
SB182
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CATION TO TERMINATE AN OBLIGATION TO REGISTER. Page 2 of 3 SB182 D. Sullivan TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC RECORDING AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC RECORDING AND DELETION OF ELECTRONIC DATA. | D. Sullivan | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EFENSE. Chesterfield INACTIVE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB2 Gilmore TO CREATE THE "TRUTH IN SENTENCING AND PAROLE REFOR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "TRUTH IN SENTENCING AND PAROLE REFORM ACT OF 2023". | Gilmore | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB237
Act 762
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EDUCTION TASK FORCE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB237 A. Clark CONCERNING VEHICLES, BOATS, OR FARMING EQUIPMENT W…”
|
CONCERNING VEHICLES, BOATS, OR FARMING EQUIPMENT WITH A REMOVED, DAMAGED, MUTILATED, OR DEFACED SERIAL NUMBER … | A. Clark | Notification that SB237 is now Act 762 |
|
SB238
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OR DEFACED SERIAL NUMBER OR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. SB238 A. Clark TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED TRESPASS; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED TRESPASS; AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB283
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ONCERNING PUBLIC RECORDING AND DELETION OF ELECTRONIC DATA. SB283 Gilmore CREATING THE FENTANYL ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILIT…”
|
CREATING THE FENTANYL ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2023; CONCERNING FENTANYL AND OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; … | Gilmore | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB337
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ESTABLISH INCREASED PENALTIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB337 Caldwell TO AUTHORIZE A PENALTY FOR THREATENING A STATE EMP…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A PENALTY FOR THREATENING A STATE EMPLOYEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR … | Caldwell | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB385
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE LAW CONCERNING REPEAT OFFENDERS AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY. SB385 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ISSUES RELATED TO CHIL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ISSUES RELATED TO CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING AND CHILD EXPLOITATION. | C. Penzo | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB40
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TE THE "TRUTH IN SENTENCING AND PAROLE REFORM ACT OF 2023". SB40 J. Boyd TO EXCLUDE FENTANYL TEST STRIPS FROM THE DEFINITION…”
|
TO EXCLUDE FENTANYL TEST STRIPS FROM THE DEFINITION OF "DRUG PARAPHERNALIA" UNDER THE UNIFORM CONTROLLED … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB409
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF AGGRAVATED TRESPASS; AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. SB409 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FUNDING FOR PUBLIC DE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FUNDING FOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS; AND TO REQUIRE COUNTIES TO BE … | C. Tucker | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB422
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NUAL ATTORNEY'S LICENSE FEE FOR FULL-TIME PUBLIC DEFENDERS. SB422 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JUVENILE COURT JURISD…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN TRAFFIC OFFENSES. | J. Bryant | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB429
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN TRAFFIC OFFENSES. SB429 A. Clark CONCERNING THE HANDLING, READING, POSSESSION, OR V…”
|
CONCERNING THE HANDLING, READING, POSSESSION, OR VIEWING OF ELECTION-RELATED DATA AND PROVIDING THAT ELECTION-RELATED DATA … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB439
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NVICTED OF AN OFFENSE COMMITTED WHEN HE OR SHE WAS A MINOR. SB439 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE LEGISLATIVE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION TA…”
|
TO CREATE THE LEGISLATIVE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION TASK FORCE. | C. Tucker | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB442
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STRICT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP. SB442 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT ANY COURT COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT ANY COURT COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB485
Act 709
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF "SERIOUS HARM" UNDER THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013. SB485 J. Payton TO AMEND ACTS 2023, NO. 264; AND TO AMEND THE LAW…”
|
TO AMEND ACTS 2023, NO. 264; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSES OF … | J. Payton | Notification that SB485 is now Act 709 |
|
SB486
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ERTER AND UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF A CATALYTIC CONVERTER. SB486 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAROLE ELIGIBILITY OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAROLE ELIGIBILITY OF A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF AN … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB60
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ILD MALTREATMENT. LAID ON THE TABLE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB60 L. TO ABOLISH THE PANIC DEFENSE. Chesterfield INACTIVE BILL…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE PANIC DEFENSE. | L. Chesterfield | Sine Die adjournment |
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 6, 2026
If everybody will take their seats, I'm going to call this meeting of Senate Judiciary in Order. We're going to start out with the people we have listed on the list, for or against list first, and the first one we have to speak against the bill is Connor Thompson. Connor Thompson, are you here? All right, if you'll come to the table and identify yourself for the record, who you're with, you're recognized.
Speaker 4
0:44
And you're speaking against the bill, correct? I'm speaking against,
Connor Thompson
Unverified
0:55
correct, in opposition. Good afternoon or evening. My name is Connor Thompson. I am an attorney and criminal justice researcher speaking today strictly in my personal capacity as a citizen of Arkansas. I want to start by putting this bill into context, which is to say that Arkansas currently has the fifth highest incarceration rate in the country.
If Arkansas were itself a sovereign country of its own, we'd lock up a higher percentage of our people than any democratic country on earth, including the United States as a whole. And this is represented in this graph right here, showing Arkansas on top, with 942 percentage of its own people locked up, as opposed to the United States as a whole, and comparable democratic countries, United Kingdom, Portugal, Canada, etc. Now this is the status quo before this bill is
enacted. Now why we should oppose Senate Bill 495 is that its goals are fundamentally contradictory. State prisons are already overcrowded and harsher sentencing will make crowding worse. It's much more economical to spend our state's surplus that we have addressing the causes of crime, lack of health care, economic support, food insecurity, safe housing rather than wasting it on expensive punishment. We are deciding categorically that some people are unredeemable and poor people
of color will be disproportionately impacted by the effects of this bill. Now other Republican-led states, red states around the country that passed truth in sentencing in the 90s and in the subsequent decades are now all trying to undo what they did. Texas has saved billions of dollars closing 10 prisons since 2011. We sometimes say thank God for Mississippi. Well Mississippi has walked back its 85% threshold going off
of that federal number. In Arizona correction costs skyrocketed under truth and sentencing with more people in prison and higher recidivism. And I'll end my COMMENT TODAY BY SAYING, BY QUOTING REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR BILL LEE OF TENNESSEE, WHO REFUSED TO SIGN A TRUTH IN SENTENCING LAW IN TENNESSEE JUST THIS PAST YEAR AND STATED QUOTE, WIDESPREAD EVIDENCE OF TRUTH IN SENTENCING LAWS RESULT IN MORE VICTIMS, HIGHER RECIDIVISM, INCREASED
CRIME AND PRISON OVERCROWDING, ALL WITH INCREASED COST TO TAXPAYERS. I'D URGE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE AT LARGE TO REJECT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MR. THOMPSON,
DO YOU KNOW WHERE ARKANSAS RANKS AS FAR AS VIOLENT CRIME? ARKANSAS, I
Connor Thompson
Unverified
3:50
DON'T KNOW THE EXACT RANKING OF WHERE WE ARE IN VIOLENT CRIME, BUT WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE DETERMINANTS OF THAT CRIME RATHER THAN A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T WORK.
WE'RE A FIFT IN VIOLENT CRIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
Speaker 16
4:04
SENATOR CLARK, YOU RECOGNIZED. YES, WHAT WAS THE NAME AGAIN? MY NAME? YES. MY NAME
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:14
IS CONNOR THOMPSON. MR. THOMPSON, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH A SMALL PART OF WHAT YOU SAID, AND I THINK YOUR GRAPH IS INTERESTING. I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT OTHER ALTERNATIVES. I THINK THAT THE
BILL WILL PARTLY DO THAT. BUT I ALSO HAVE PAID ATTENTION THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS TO MINNESOTA, OREGON, AND
where they went the opposite direction and releasing people. And I know that that didn't work at all. Any comment
Connor Thompson
Unverified
4:50
on that? I can't comment on just an anecdotal evidence. I don't know what specifically you're referring to. And
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:57
other than the graph, did you offer
Speaker 20
5:00
anything other than anecdotal evidence? These are statistics from the prison policy initiative. The graph? Yes,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
5:06
sir. Yes, but other than that, you peeled off some things,
but I didn't hear any factual basis for any of
Speaker 20
5:15
them. That we have the fifth highest incarceration
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
5:21
rate? That was factual. But you said that the only reason we had a high crime rate was hunger and lack of medical care. And I didn't see any kind of evidence that you presented for those type of velocities. of philosophies. I can't
call it science or fact-based in any way. I'd be willing to follow up. So back to my anecdotal. It's not really anecdotal. If you've been following this,
and you're testifying here, you're acting like you follow this, Minnesota, Minneapolis, they want to cut back and not put people in jail. New York. I mean, I remember going to New York City a few years ago, jails were empty. The jails weren't empty because they were trying to empty jails, just the opposite. Giuliani came down hard on crime. People sang his praises everywhere, and their
jails became empty because they were so hard on crime and enforced crime so
well that the results were just spectacular. And for people, I don't know,
because I've never been Times Square when you had to be afraid to get mugged. But everybody talked about how safe it was, et cetera, et cetera. And while what I'm saying is anecdotal, what happened there is not anecdotal. So, and I'm assuming that
when he did that, people were just as hungry, and the health
care was the same. So I'm trying to, because I would have really
Connor Thompson
Unverified
6:56
Referring to broken windows policing in New York City, which was a legacy of the Giuliani administration. I've previously published in the Arkansas Advocate a piece about addressing the violent crime rates in Little Rock and proposals for solutions that address both safety and justice. I'm more than willing to go into details about proposals that we could follow that would truly address issues of violent crime, specific to Little Rock, not trying to bring in other examples from other cities.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
7:29
And like I said, you and I would agree that I think we should have done more of that. But you really, when you went in that hunger was the cause and lack of medical care was the cause, I think you need to go with some of these guys in law enforcement and spend some time and see if that's really the cause. Because while we would agree on some of this, you completely lost me on that. Okay,
one more question, Mr. Thompson, do you believe in the death penalty? No, sir. Okay, so if somebody murdered your wife, what would your solution be?
Why are you trying to confront me? I'm asking you a question to see where you stand on Captain Murray. What would you do if somebody, what do you think should happen if somebody murdered
Connor Thompson
Unverified
8:20
your wife to that individual? There should be repercussions for doing harm to other people. For example, what? For example, an appropriate sentence. Lock them up? Lock them up? There should be appropriate sentencing. You don't think that you lock somebody up for killing your wife? Yes. Okay.
All right. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for
Speaker 39
8:56
your testimony. Next, we have Dub Byers. Is that four? Are you going four against?
No, this is against. This is part. Hey, hang on just a second, Mr. Byers. Are you speaking against? You've got a part here.
Sir. You're speaking partly for and partly
Speaker 43
9:15
against? Yes. Okay. if you want to we have a handout
Speaker 44
9:22
just a second if you want to go ahead and introduce
Speaker 47
9:28
yourself and who you're with yes sir i am dubs buyers i i
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
9:33
am here today as a private citizen i do not represent the board of Correction. I am a member of the Board of Correction, but first of all, I want to commend
Senator Gilmore and the people who have worked with him on this bill. As was stated, it's been a thankless task. You've made great efforts, and I'll assure you that a lot of us are thankful to
Speaker 50
10:08
see many of the things, most if not all of the things, in this bill.
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
10:16
I do have a prepared statement, and Senator, if it's agreeable
Yes, if you'll do it. I hate to speed you up, but we're
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
10:31
running out of time, so do it as quickly as you can. Yes, sir. My name is Dubb. I'm sorry that I don't talk faster, but my name is Dubbs Byers. I'm a resident of Gould, Arkansas. I was appointed to the Board of Correction 2015, reappointed last year. I'm a retired school superintendent. I'm also a retired pastor, having served Landmark Baptist Church in Gould and First Baptist Church in Dumas.
I wanted to make a difference when I was appointed to the Board of Correction. I support the goals that are proposed here, that are outlined by this bill. And I think that many of the things are very good. I have been a supporter of positive things in the prison for many years. I've been instrumental in assisting in the establishment of a seminary at Varner Prison,
whose purpose it is to aid in moral rehabilitation of the inmate population. You have my handout. I'll skip down if that's okay. There's really only one area that I think that deserves scrutiny, and that is in particular on page 54 of the bill, beginning on line 32, says the director shall serve the pleasure of the board,
and the board is lined through and secretary of the department of corrections changed from the board to the secretary. Then again on page 57, beginning on line six, the directors have served the pleasure of the secretary of the department of corrections instead of the board. There's already been one bill previous in this session that has diminished somewhat
the power of the Board of Correction, and I think that this further diminishes the power. When the Transformation and Efficiency Act of 2019 was passed, one of the, and I'm quoting here from the law itself, the Transformation and Efficiency Act of 2019 shall not abridge, diminish, or curtail in any respect the authority or responsibilities vested in a state entity that is subject to Arkansas Constitution Amendment 33
and affiliated with the Cabinet-level Department under the Transformation and Efficiency Act. I think that those two statements in the bill seem to violate the intent of the Transformation and Efficiency Act of 2019. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to the role in making Arkansas a safer place to raise our
Speaker 57
13:35
families. That's my shortened statement, Senator. So your main objection is the
autonomy of the director of prisons?
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
13:44
That the, not necessarily the autonomy of the secretary, but the diminishing of the power of the board.
Speaker 61
13:53
Okay. All right, any question from committee? Senator
Speaker 62
13:58
Clark? What is the purpose of the board? The purpose of the board is to oversee the department
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
14:07
of correction. And the board's through appointment? yes sir and the appointments come from the governor seven-year term okay so the governor
appoints the board who oversees the department of corrections and the so in ultimately the governor is overseeing the department of corrections am i correct sir i said ultimately the governor's overseeing the department of corrections through the appointments is that correct Well, through the appointments, yes, sir. Okay, so if we took away power from the board, the governor would still be overseeing the Department of Corrections, just not as much power through the board?
Correct. I wonder if the governor has anything to do with this bill? I'm sure. I
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
15:07
don't know. I don't know, sir. Thank you.
Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Byers. Good afternoon. I've known you a pretty good while since I've been up here and since you've been a member of the Board of Corrections. And I know we've done a
lot of things in the legislature trying to determine and implement evidence-based practices.
Would you agree with that? Yes, ma'am. and i don't know if you've had time to read this full bill or not
Speaker 57
15:44
but have you i've read most of it no ma'am i can't say that i've read
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
15:49
it in its entirety it's quite a reading so uh you know i'm like you i haven't read it in its entirety either but
just based on the discussion and the presentation from earlier today it seemed like we were trying to do something different
but as I listened it appears to me that we've been trying to do
things differently and I'd like for you to kind of give a description of if
you can of how things have changed since we STARTED WITH THIS EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES. NOW I REMEMBER BEFORE, I'M LOST WITH HIS LAST NAME,
KEVIN. KEVIN MURPHY. KEVIN MURPHY. BEFORE KEVIN WAS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, I THINK SHEILA SHARP WAS THERE. YES, MA'AM. AND THEN
BEFORE SHEILA ray hobbs was there i believe g david gunthar but that
Speaker 74
17:00
was community corrections uh uh ray hobbs was over department of corrections okay and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
17:06
then we put department of community corrections
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
17:14
ma'am yes ma'am okay so i
remember it was was Sheila Sharp that was going seemingly all over the country looking and studying best practices. Can you say that
we've established some best practices, and can you tell us if they have any good results?
Speaker 50
17:40
Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I would say that over the years, it
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
17:45
has been refined, And I believe that there are things being done now. I know that we're involved with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock now doing a comprehensive study on the effectiveness of programs within the Department of Correction. I think in time past, there's been kind of a scattergun approach where we give everybody anger management. Well, believe it or not, maybe everybody does not need anger management.
Maybe some need that and some need some other program. So I think over the years, there's been a refinement of the programs that are needed for certain individuals.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
18:30
some type of evaluation and assessment of inmates when they come into the system? And that's one. And
then number two, programs that they have been assigned to be involved in, have you seen any good results?
I mean, in other words, have we stopped
or have you seen recidivism drop? Yes,
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
19:01
ma'am. The department, and I don't have that information on me, but the department every year does quite an extensive study on the programs and how well they work. I'll tell you this, the programs that tend to work best are faith-based programs. The religious programs tend to have the best results.
Education, we have, as you know, we have a GED program. Education works, career tech education, providing skills. And we have a rather extensive vocational education program. And getting these people a vocational skill tends to work. It tends to keep them out of prison more. and there are experts behind me
that can give a lot better answers than I can but a lot of the things that tend not to work too well are drug rehab programs some programs like that but yes ma'am as I said the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is involved in extensive research study right now that should be completed within the next year that should tell what programs are working and what programs are not. When
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
20:33
was that program started? When was that
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
20:36
started? I think it's in its second year of evaluation now, and it has one more year. I think it's a
Speaker 82
20:46
three-year study. And last, was that something that was implemented by the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
20:51
Board of corrections? Yes, ma'am. And in terms of recidivism, can you give us an
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
21:03
idea? Are you seeing the same people back? There's pretty much a revolving door, and that's what, with Senator Gilmore,
And this bill, coupled with increased room, increased beds, should make an impact. We do have a portion of the population that's just a revolving door. And it's been a concern of ours. it is a concern it's not that it's not that we don't want to do anything about it is is that
the prisons are maxed out and the the jails are maxed out and there's just nowhere to put these people so hopefully the increased capacity
Speaker 50
21:56
will help if you'd allow me just one more
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
22:11
question You know, I sense when I was actively
engaged in practicing law and going in and out of courtrooms,
I sensed a lot of people with lack of education and mental health issues. Sometimes when I'd see a defendant standing in front of a district court for
probable cause hearing, I'd see so many say, when they were asked for an address, where do they live, they couldn't
say where they live. So to me, that indicated they
were homeless. And earlier today, I think you were in
the room, I spoke about this term institutionalized individuals. And
early on in my practice back in 82, I learned that term and I still think
it applies. Some people can't make it out because they don't have the skill set. They don't have work skills, they don't have social skills, they don't have support from family members would you agree yes ma'am i would
Speaker 50
23:43
i think that there are a number of people who are institutionalized and they quite frankly have it better in prison than they have it out on the outside yes ma'am i would agree with that i i don't i don't think that's most of them but there
there is there is a number thank you mr chair thank you senator Thank you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:37
A few gentlemen will identify yourself, state who you're with, and you'll be recognized. Go ahead. My name
Nathan Smith
Unverified
24:44
is Nathan Smith. I'm the prosecuting attorney in Benton
David Ackeridge-Underquasset
Unverified
24:48
County. My name is David Ackeridge-Underquasset, attorney of the 14th
Daniel Shue
Unverified
24:56
of Ms. Baxter Moon in Benton County. I'm Daniel Hsu. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, the Sebastian
County, and I'm also the chair for the Arkansas Prosecuting
Speaker 98
25:06
Attorneys Association. Excuse me. Matt Durek, prosecuting attorney for the
Speaker 99
25:08
4th Judicial District, which is Madison, Washington Counties,
President of Arkansas, Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Speaker 102
25:15
We're here to speak in support of the bill. We have
Daniel Shue
Unverified
25:22
taken a poll of the 28 elected prosecuting attorneys. Unanimously, we support the bill. To speak further on the bill is probably not necessary on our part, but we wanted to come forward to let the committee know that, again, all elected 28 prosecuting attorneys support this bill.
Sarah Moore
Unverified
25:47
Okay, committee, any questions? Senator Flowers? So,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:52
as I understand it, the bill was just filed two days ago. Did you all have input in drafting the bill? Have you read the whole bill? I have
Daniel Shue
Unverified
26:10
read it. You did? That's good. Well, thank you, Senator. But yes, I've read it. And yes, we worked with a legislator.
We worked with the governor's office. I mean, you had all three branches of government in essence because we
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:38
And so you all have thought through this process of renaming and kind of
revising what we have now as the board of corrections
into this post-prison supervision board?
Speaker 110
26:57
Post-prison transfer board. Transfer board. Yes, we've discussed that,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
27:02
and obviously a lot of that is executive branch, which is not our bailiwick, but it seems to make sense and be a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:15
new way forward. In the past, it was a statement made earlier today about the parole board just carte blanche letting people out when they've reached their eligibility date.
Do you find that to be so? Do you all have any
part to play when that inmate comes up before the board?
Speaker 98
27:47
Yes, Senator. We get, I wouldn't say in every instance, but we get notification from the Department of Correction and the parole board that a particular defendant is coming up. We are given, notice is sent out to the prosecuting attorney, the law enforcement agency responsible for the arrest, the sentencing judge.
and if a victim has signed up for notification, notice goes out to a victim, too, giving us the opportunity to object to an individual's parole. And, I mean, I think prosecuting attorneys may handle it differently. I mean, I don't want to speak for everybody. I mean, typically on a plea, we tend to not object if they have done the amount of time that we had anticipated they were going to do.
I don't know. I can't tell you, and I don't know if I'm anticipating a question or not, but I don't know if we object if they release them, if they deny them. I don't know what effect an objection from our point of view is, But I have had people rejected based on my objection. So I don't think they're letting everybody out. I don't think so either.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:15
And then I wanted to
know from you all just your point of view in terms of what impact this bill may have on cases that will come before the court.
When the date, when this bill is effective in 2024, do you have any thoughts about that?
Daniel Shue
Unverified
29:48
Yes, Senator. We discussed that, and we think we're going to have to try more cases. We're going to have to see what juries do. Arkansas is one of only five states in the United States where the jury not only decides guilt or innocence, but they also make a recommendation of sentence. And your plea offers need to kind of mirror what juries are doing. So obviously if we've changed parole, the jury is also, because of truth in sentencing, told when parole is.
we're going to have to kind of see what juries do before we start making plea offers on cases after the first of the year. And that's
Speaker 69
30:29
something that's uncertain right now. Is that what you're saying? Well, assuming the bill passes, yes,
Speaker 110
30:35
ma'am. We'll have to try more cases. Do you not have a backlog
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:41
in each one of your districts now? well i mean the
Nathan Smith
Unverified
30:49
thing about trying criminal cases you're never going to have zero right there's
there's always going to be a quote-unquote backlog if you
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:56
will well you know we've we've gone through covet yes ma'am i had a nephew that was killed in 2019 the defendant that's charged with his murder is still sitting in the county jail trial has been continued four times now. So how many of those cases are you going to see that these new cases are going to be stacked up on? Can you even imagine that?
Nathan Smith
Unverified
31:27
Well, what I would say is I think that what you've been through, a lot of victims' families are frustrated with how long the criminal justice system can take. One of the things that we can do, I think is increasing capacity in terms of how to deal with the backlog, because, you know, one way to deal with the backlog really quickly is simply to, you know, plea everything out to lower amounts, dismiss cases, whatever. That's not the right approach to take. We have to be able to attach the appropriate sentence to the crime committed. And so I think when you look
at the increased capacity, hopefully that will come as a result of, I believe, another bill, as well as increased sentencing for very serious crimes like you're describing. My hope is that that will help with that going forward. Now, that will vary with each individual district. As you mentioned, the pandemic was
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:20
handled differently in different places. Well, and it would depend on a
Nathan Smith
Unverified
32:24
defendant accepting a plea. It would. The best way to resolve cases is usually pressure on both sides, right,
both the state and the defense, to know that a jury trial date is coming, there's going to be finality, and if
Speaker 120
32:38
there is a jury trial date, there's consequences attached to that. It's not
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:45
just that we don't have space or anything like that. Well, tell
me, in your opinion, do you think this bill, if it becomes law, will incentivize the prosecutors to ask for the maximum penalty for the particular crime
that would, by this bill, require that defendant, if convicted, to do 100%. Yeah. I can just tell you how it operates, where I am, and I
Nathan Smith
Unverified
33:16
know these gentlemen probably are similar. In terms of plea offers, Mr. Hsu is correct. your jury sentencing really controls what a good plea offer is going to be. I think that's a really good check in the state of Arkansas. Our juries will tell us if we're too harsh, if we're too
lenient, and anything in between. And so when it comes to incentivizing prosecutors to argue for the maximum, really your jury is going to tell you where you should be on that, because we do have a jury as the check against the prosecuting attorney if they are out of bounds, as you seem to suggest someone might be, if I'm
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:56
following you correctly. I guess, you know, before it even gets to the point of a jury, you're going to make an offer, maybe.
So with your offer, your plea offer, based on this, and based on the intent to protect Arkansas and release eligibility and all that. Well, I guess I don't see a difference between how that
Nathan Smith
Unverified
34:25
would be currently. I mean, you know, I guess I don't see what difference would make in terms of a prosecutor being able to make an offer based on what the law is at the time.
So if this bill passes, plea offers will reflect what the new law is going to be. But again, no one has to take a plea offer. Everyone can go to trial and decide that they
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
34:52
think the plea offer is unreasonable. Well, I'm just trying to get a sense, and hopefully the committee will get a sense of what your prosecutorial discretion may be like. Is it going to change? Is it, are you going to be more conscious of if we pass this as a legislative body, is
that speaking to you in such a way that you think that the maximum should be offered for these crimes that individuals may be convicted of that would require 100 percent? Well, in terms of an offer, I suppose we could offer the maximum. It
Nathan Smith
Unverified
35:32
wouldn't make any sense because no one would take the maximum. There's no incentive for them to do that. Short of death. Short of the death penalty.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
35:45
Because in all murder cases, you're not going to offer. You're not seeking the death penalty. So I
Nathan Smith
Unverified
35:51
would say each case is individual. So typically what happens in any case is a case is a plea offer is made individually based on those facts and circumstances. In some cases, a defendant pleads down to a lesser charge for a host of other reasons. Other cases, based on facts and circumstances, there may be a trial. But again, the same checks and balances are still going to be in effect,
is that a defendant doesn't have to take a plea offer. It's still going to have to go before a judge and a jury. The process will play out just like it does today. To your point, in certain crimes, there's going to be a higher parole eligibility
Speaker 98
36:33
that could apply to those crimes if the bill passes. And if I can add, I would say that prosecutors are more incentivized to offer, I wouldn't say the maximum, but higher sentences now because they're going to be serving less time.
I mean, if there's any incentivizing or incentivization, if that's a word, It's going to be to fashion a sentence. You're going to know what the sentence is going to be in most cases, what they're going to serve. And so you don't have to add more time on there to get to a number that you feel is appropriate for that person serving, if that makes sense. Because right now, if you're serving, if it's a quarter time offense,
then you know if you want that person to serve five years you're going to have to offer 20 and in a lot of cases that's the max and so uh i think now we're going to be able to tweak that to to have a lower sentence because we're going to be able to get the number that we think is appropriate or in the past we've seen with juries that the jury thinks is appropriate um so i don't think i mean i can't like like mr smith said we can't speak for everybody but i don't see any prosecutor coming in offering the max because you're going to be trying every single
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:51
case you don't feel like that's what this bill is after what the legislature kind of
the message that is being sent by this bill if it becomes law is that we want
Speaker 127
38:08
them to do the max i i think that i mean i
Speaker 98
38:14
obviously i can't look into the minds of the of the legislators who drafted it, but my thought is that it's just seeking clarity for those people because it is, I wouldn't say in every jury trial, but in lots of jury trials, George will
come back with questions on if we sentence them to X, how much time are they actually going to serve? And this adds a little bit of clarity to it. And so, you know, in the past when we tell them that they'll serve a quarter of the time or 70 percent of the time or one-sixth of the time and they come up with with a figure in a lot of these cases the ones I anticipate that we'll be trying the 100 percent ones the 85 percent ones there will be a lot of clarity how much time will they serve if we give them 15
Speaker 99
39:00
years well they'll serve 15 years so I think it adds clarity
Speaker 129
39:04
to it thank you mr chair thank you senator clark you're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
39:11
recognized thank you thank you gentlemen for being
here uh your endorsement obviously means a lot does to me uh what uh what would between you briefly uh would you say are the top two or three things best about this bill and why from a prosecutor's standpoint?
Well, I guess I'll start. I would say, kind of like Mr. Dura was just saying, one is
Nathan Smith
Unverified
39:41
I think that the public transparency and what sentences are, because frequently I'll hear, you know, well, we hear a guy got 30, how come they're doing so much less time? So I think transparency is a really good thing. And I also think the acknowledgement that there are certain crimes where I do think that we need both a stricter sentencing option as well as hopefully more capacity down the road. I know that's not specifically in this bill,
but I think that's a huge need that
Speaker 132
40:07
we have. I think certainty is important to all of us, and that's one of the difficulties with juries is that when you're trying to explain to a jury what someone's going to do when they have been convicted, right now it's difficult. I mean, and it's just hard for people to understand. This is better for that reason. That certainly helps a lot. And I'll say this. I think for all of us also, So we're not interested in seeing how long we can put everybody in prison. That's not our goal. If there are alternatives available that make good sense for the communities that we live in,
we're interested in those alternatives. And this bill presents some things along those alternatives that we like and we'd
Daniel Shue
Unverified
40:45
like to see happen. To me, the number one thing is the clarity that it gives. There's an old saw in law enforcement and the law itself that it's not the severity of the punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty. And here we've got certainty, and I think that will make a big difference.
Speaker 98
41:10
In addition to those previously mentioned, I do like the sections that sets up the recidivism reduction programs, incentivizes people who are incarcerated to enroll in certain classes to better themselves, to lessen their time, and to reduce recidivism, setting up the task force. Obviously, that's not a super highlight, but that is a unique approach that I like because I think that is very important, and
that needs to be one of our main goals is to reduce recidivism. I mean, the goal should be when a person walks out of prison, then that's the last time they have contact with a criminal justice system. When they get off parole, when they get off their supervision, they're not seen in the criminal justice system before. And I think finding ways to attack recidivism is a very good goal, and I like that in here. Well, according to testimony, some of you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:11
at least had some input into this, but having input doesn't mean that you got everything that you wanted.
So if you were king in the world, if you were going to change this or add to it, what would be the most important
Speaker 106
42:33
change we could make? They once asked George Menard Shaw if he considers himself a good Christian. He said,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:39
that's not for me to say. But, you know, then my skepticism scale goes way up, and I don't find your testimony nearly as...
Speaker 98
42:48
Well, I think we all have different parts of the bill that we're not crazy about, and we voice those to the sponsors. But this is the committee. I know. I know it's late, so I need to quit my rambling, but I'm not crazy about the subsequent theft, making it a felony, regardless of the previous classification. I know others were not, they were vocal about not being happy with residential burglary
being removed from a list of felonies involving violence. And there were people voicing concerns about the negligent homicide becoming a felony in every instance. So there are several areas, several spots in this bill that we're not wild about. But all in all,
Speaker 114
43:42
to us, the good far outweighs the bad. I appreciate that honest answer.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:52
And I would echo what I was going to say as a residential burglary. I would echo that as well. I would never
Nathan Smith
Unverified
43:59
say it was perfect. If I'd gotten drafted all myself, it wouldn't be perfect either. But I do think that this is, since I've been elected prosecutor since 2015, this is the best bill on criminal justice that I think can make an impact in the state of Arkansas that I personally have seen that has a lot of good things in it. It's not
Speaker 142
44:16
perfect, and we accept that. And I don't mean to echo what they're saying. The residential burger thing has been a
Speaker 132
44:22
factor for all of us, but we understand that's the direction we're going to go.
And I'll echo also the manslaughter and negligent homicide issue gives us some concern. But, again, we understand that this is the direction we're going, and this bill solves a lot of other problems that make it okay for
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
44:38
us. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:46
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durant, you largely answered my question already, but I just kind of want to make
sure that I understood what you said and that you all tend to agree.
I understand you can't speak for all 28 elected. because there's only four of you here right now. But just to give a hypothetical and to make the math easy, let's say we have a crime that's committed, and in your personal determination, you think this person should serve seven years, okay? It's a 70% crime. So under the current law, y'all would seek 10 years, either in plea or from a jury. Exact same facts, same determination reached by you that this person should serve seven years
Under the new law, it's a 100% crime. In that scenario, are you going to seek seven years instead of
Speaker 98
45:39
ten years? Personally, yes, with the exception, obviously, if it's a class Y felony, in which case the minimum is ten. But, I mean, that is the one factor that's not going to change, at least from my standpoint is, and I think we're all in agreement that the way that we approach
our plea offers are based on what a jury's going to do and the amount of time that we feel is appropriate. And so we factor that in when we make an offer. If it's a quarter time, then we figure out what we think the time down should be, and we'll supply it times four. So that won't change with this so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
46:23
the amount of time hypotheticals aside and you're right yeah the minimum class-wide felony is obviously 10 but it's you're trying to get to an amount of time served
and yes right now you do math in order to get there correct that's right and in the in the new system you may also do math depending on whether it's a 50 85 100 or whatever the case might be but as far as how long you were determining someone should serve just in your personal judgment the number you're trying to get to ultimately will be the same even though the math as to how you get there will be different
Speaker 154
46:55
yes that is correct i think that's right okay thank you
all right any other question from committee members see none thank you gentlemen
does sarah moore speak against You recognize, Ms.
Sarah Moore
Unverified
47:26
Moore, if you'll state your name again and who you're
with, you're recognized. Hi, good evening. My name is Sarah Moore. I'm
the Executive Director of the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition.
I agree with the earlier speaker. You guys are really far down there. I know it's been a long day and I appreciate the conversation. I know that we all want a safe Arkansas, and we're all striving for the same goal. I just think that there are different ways that we can arrive there. I want to echo some of the points earlier and bring a few more data points and some studies into the conversation and really echo that long sentences don't deter violent crime. There's a 2016 briefing by the National Institute of Justice that summarized that the current research on deterrence in prison sentences,
especially long sentences, does little to deter future crime. And earlier when Senator Gilmore was presenting, numerous times it came up about speaking directly to victims and really wanting to make sure that we honor the will of victims. Victims of violence want prevention, not incarceration. When they're talked to back in 2016, there was a national survey of survivors of violence by the Alliance on Safety and Justice. And when they were asking those individuals that had survived violence what they wanted and gave options like a long prison sentence or a shorter sentence and spending more on prevention and rehabilitation programs, 61% wanted that and 27% preferred long prison sentences.
And there's some more details of that that I can send you. So moving on to oftentimes people who commit violent crimes, unfortunately, themselves have been victims of crimes. They've gone through trauma, abuse, you know, youth violence, things like that. And specifically, there was a 2019 Safety and Justice Challenge Project that talked to incarcerated Arkansans. Arkansans, one-third of adults in Arkansas prisons reported witnessing a murder, 40% of whom witnessed
it while under the age of 18. An additional 36% reported that they had been seriously
beaten or stabbed prior to their incarceration. And I did spend, and I'm feeling tired, I
know you guys are too, but there's some specifics to the bill that I wanted to talk to because I did take the time and I've gone through all of this bill because it's incredibly important. I'm raising, I'm a lifelong Arkansas and I'm raising a 7 and an 11 year old and the decisions that we're making now, they're inheriting.
I also am the family member to someone with serious mental illness who unfortunately, whenever they're struggling, does have interaction with law enforcement and possibly with incarceration. And so I know that we have a tough nut to crack and we've got some things to solve for and there are different ways that we can go about it. I have incredible concerns about the process for this bill you know it's been kept under wraps I know it's been taking place and that there's the possibility that individuals could contact the authors of this bill and have audience
however most people across the state have not seen this bill until it was introduced on Monday and this should be a very public process for 132 page bill that's going to have sweeping potential changes on the state of Arkansas and I'd like to go through a few of these. I want to speak to one more specific point I mentioned serious mental illness and mental health was brought up. In the state of Arkansas over the last 15 years I've struggled with really trying to find appropriate resources for my family member as well as others in the
community that sought myself out and there was a point brought up earlier about the potential of resources that we would look into and I applaud in this bill trying to bring forward some additional resources for mental health but that was brought up about county jails potentially helping to restore individuals I think that you know county jails today are struggling to just meet basic you know needs for individuals and and are you know struggling with overcrowding and so I just am questioning and wondering how the path forward would
be to actually do that what programming what resources what funding what staffing would be available for that because we struggle to keep our CSU's open that have been an incredible resource in our community we struggle to have acute care beds and the appropriate resources for those in our state and so if you'll humor me I'll try to go really quickly through the pages that I marked some of these were brought up earlier but I just think there are a lot of questions and so really I'm saying not so much saying no to this bill but pausing and having additional conversation about this bill. There's
mentioned on page nine a risk and needs assessment. There's a lot of evidence based approaches on risk and needs assessments and I'm not sure if we're looking at purchasing something off the shelf that exists or if this is something that we're going to be coming up with ourself in the in the corrections department or if it happens today but there are oftentimes appropriate you know individuals that have to do this with a certain level of expertise. These are known to be and have some types of bias that have to be measured
and looked into and readjusted over time. Moving on and not knowing what the who would end up you know making the risk assessment, who would run it and what the cost would be. Trying to go quickly and knowing other people want to talk. On page 28 and I think that this was brought up earlier is it speaks in lines 30 to line 34 that you know someone that's doing a hundred percent also having to you know have some kind of post-release supervision and was just
concerned about the legality of being being able to do that. Additionally, whenever we talk about the 100% crimes that are listed, it was spoken to by the prosecutors a few minutes ago, but we do all know that there are a crushing amount of court cases today that are miring down the court. And those 100% charges, there will be no incentive really for individuals to take a plea.
I mean, they're going to go to jury trial. And so I wonder if we've estimated and tried to understand the additional workload and what the cost will be for the personnel, the additional staffing that might be needed for that. On page 31, line 13 to 18, it talks about the fines and the cost. I was curious, I mean, as a person who interacts in our state with individuals who've come out of
incarceration and struggle with their fines and fees, it can take a really long time for individuals to get their footing. And I'm just curious, this 120 days to, which is, again, I applaud and taking a pause and giving people a breather is great, but I'm just curious where this number came from. You know, what kind of, you know, evidence-based approach was used to come up with 120 because with the individuals that we work with oftentimes six months to a year trying
to get stable is oftentimes the case. On page 65
it starts to talk about looking at the programs in the Department of corrections and regularly assessing them line 17 just again not understanding it's not not no specifics on how often they'll be assessed who will do the assessing you know what kind of goals will they have to have to meet to say that they're meeting the goal for being programs that we want to have in place but further down on line 29 it talks about future employment in fields with
adequate demand you know who determines that you know how often is that re-evaluated and and what metrics are we using to determine that it's
adequate demand or it's a field that individuals are going to
have gainful employment whenever on page 117 going to 118 that we're talking about definitions of those that would be in community corrections being amended. In the target groups on
lines four and five, terroristic threatening is marked out and I was curious about why those individuals would not be considered for community corrections. Oftentimes in our community individuals charged with this crime are struggling with their mental health and potentially are coping with using illegal substances and possibly have the need for addiction treatment in the community Corrections area seems like an appropriate place for them and so curious why that would be one that would be excluded. And so I'll conclude my
remarks but the reason I went through those particulars is that you know that's in you know 12 or 14 hours of work of going through just having those initial you know questions and concerns again I think that this is legislation that we're talking about making sweeping changes that have multi-million dollar impacts have in tremendous impacts on our families and our communities again we all want safe communities and there are a lot of different pathways to do
that and I think that having additional community conversation is needed before WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK
Speaker 171
57:52
YOU. I'M RODNEY RIDE. I'M CELINE COUNTY SHERIFF AND ALSO THE
the president of the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. And we are here in support of this bill. Not to drag this out any longer than we've already been here, but we feel like this bill starts to move the needle and we've got to start somewhere. Along with that, along
Speaker 172
58:08
with the additional prison beds, we believe that this will be a good start for Arkansas and we're here to support it. The end.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
58:24
senator flowers do you have a question thank you sheriff for being here
Speaker 178
58:37
you're saline county benton county saline county saline county
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
58:40
yeah benton brunt area do you have uh are you holding in your county jail now any 43 that are waiting to go to ADC yes ma'am they've already been adjudicated
Speaker 172
58:56
yes ma'am just waiting for a bed space
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
59:01
do you have any idea when they might leave your facility and go to
ADC um no ma'am ma'am. Do you have any knowledge of when this new prison is going
Speaker 171
59:23
to be built? We're hoping that y'all start immediately this year. We
Speaker 172
59:27
know that it won't be built for several years, but we've got to start somewhere, ma'am.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
59:32
I'm just wondering what your expectation is. If we start in 2024 committing people after convicting
them to serve 100 percent, violent criminals, where are they going to go? how long will
they sit in your jail well i would
Speaker 172
1:00:04
hope that we're going to get construction
started immediately that would be a that would be a plus um but i don't know that that's ma'am we can't we can't not do what this bill is presenting we can't hope that no one's going to break the law I can't hope that people are going to change their choices in life because that's what everything is. It's a choice. And, I mean, I've heard a lot of hypotheticals today. I mean, hypothetically, if I was king, I wouldn't want anyone to break the law.
But that's not realistic. And we need to build additional prison. We need to have harsh laws on the books. Well, do you
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:00:51
see any other needs that we should have? like mental health services? Absolutely, absolutely. And would you agree that in your jail, some of those
that are waiting to go to the Department of Correction have some mental health challenges? Yes, ma'am, they do.
Speaker 172
1:01:12
And I did read some in the Senator's bill that there was parts in there for mental health, and we're encouraged about that as well. Well,
Speaker 183
1:01:24
your understanding now of our system, isn't it supposed to have some
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:01:31
mental health services? It does. Does your jail have mental health services for these inmates that are waiting to go on to ADC now? We
Speaker 186
1:01:39
do the very best we can with the resources that's available.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from committee? Seeing
none, Sheriff. Thank you. All right, we have Osiris Bally. Osiris, if you'll state who you're with, your name again,
Osiris Bally
Unverified
1:02:14
and who you're with, you're recognized. Good evening. My name is Osiris Bally. I'm with myself.
I believe building another prison and spending over millions of dollars will not build safer communities nor affirm human dignity. The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet nearly almost 16 percent of all incarcerated people in the world. This bill does not address the problem of children in adult prisons. Children threatened by abuse, neglect, violence, racial bias, and poverty are usually ignored unless they do something to act out we need more funding for diversion intervention and prevention
programs to steer youth down the right path and not more investment in the school to prison pipeline does this bill help improve the literacy rate in arkansas i didn't see that in 132 pages filed less than 48 hours ago this bill won't address prosecutorial misconduct regardless of popular belief not every person in prison is guilty people have been wrongly convicted in in our state system, defined by official indifference to innocence and error. People have been executed without DNA evidence being tested that could prove their innocence,
and we're supposed to be okay with that. More than four million Americans can't vote because of a past conviction. This bill does not address restoration of voter rights. This bill does very little to address mental health treatment. People with psychological disorders and intellectual disabilities need treatment programs and not incarceration. This bill doesn't address paying prisoners. Arkansas is one of four states that won't pay people who are incarcerated. How do we expect people who are serving lengthy sentences to be educated on how to handle
their finances independently when they reenter society with no savings, but they inherited criminal justice debt? This bill won't address housing or employment for individuals formerly incarcerated reenter in society. These are two of the biggest barriers to high recidivism rates. Yet the issue is being ignored. Does this bill address the in-remain conditions, the lack of healthy food, trauma from solitary confinement, education, program and treatment for addictions? These all contribute to high recidivism rates. What would ending parole do for people experiencing these problems?
Why are we committed to being one of the highest incarcerated states in the country? I didn't see that explained in the 132 pages filed less than 48 hours ago. This bill was to target some of the most violent offenses, but I saw nothing in those 132 pages about banning assault rifles, stricter gun laws, or less firearms in the more than 130 pages filed in that bill while protecting the gun lobby if we want to improve public safety. Decades of excessive punishment, harsh and extreme sentencing, have left our state with
one of the highest incarceration rates. Why are we rushing less than 48 hours after 130 pages were filed to not listen to people Arkansas. I encourage you to vote against Senate Bill 495 and let's invest in people
Speaker 144
1:05:16
and not more penal labor or the prison industry complex. Thank you. Any question from committee members? I'm not saying
none. Thank you Mr. Belly. Kamara Seals. Kamara Seals, state who you're with
and your name again and you
Kamara Seals
Unverified
1:05:46
recognize. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Kamara Seals. I am policy director at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. aren't you recognized okay so you know one of our concerns and I've talked to quite a few people around the state just grassroot people we're grassroots organization I'm a grassroots organizer one of our concerns has been lifted up
about this bill being filed for you know less than 48 hours ago we would like to have some discussion around this. The people I talked to couldn't get here today. They're around the state. We just need more time. It's a 132-page bill. I'm very interested. I'm very active in my community at the grassroots level. We do, you know, I work with the crime prevention group,
Crime Prevention and Intervention Group in Pine Bluff, and I'm not a professional in this area, but we just haven't had time to read and digest this 132-page bill here. And so people who are just ordinary citizens like myself feel that this is just being rushed through the system. And I understand it may be no fault of anybody on this committee.
I understand that. But whoever is doing it, you know, we just wish, you know, we could slow down a minute, give us time to read the bill, to talk about the bill. But anyway, the section I do want to highlight, you know, there are some good things in the bill. But there are a lot of concerns about the bill, at least the parts that I've read. We kind of took turns and had different sections to read the bill. But one of the things I want to talk about is on page 63.
And this part is very near and dear to me, page 63, section 102, where it starts, but line 22, where it talks about the training for inmates. Because here's what we know. Eventually, inmates get out of prison, okay? They get out. They come back into society, and we want them to be prepared for the workforce.
And so it just kind of brought concern that these programs, seemingly with this bill, the programs to prepare them for rehabilitation and to be successful adults when they get out of prison are becoming optional. Now, I don't know if that's the intent, but that's the way I read it with my understanding, because it said programs under this section may include without limitation training in the following fields.
And it lists the five fields, which are professional careers and vocations, service careers and vocations, information and computer technology, medical technology, and office administration. So it's troublesome that shall was scratched out and it says may. You know, these are things, you know, and when you say they may offer, well, they may not offer, you know. So that one word, changes, can kind of change the meaning of whoever's going to interpret this,
whoever's going to implement this. This is really important that we have these programs and more because, you know, like I said, I'm speaking from a perspective of when the inmates have served their term and they are out in the public with you and I, okay? And so we need them to be prepared. This will help with the recidivism rate if they come out of prison with some skill, some trade, some, you know, some training to come back into the workforce with you and I.
So that is, the bill is overwhelming. Most of it went over my head, to be honest with you. I've read a lot today. There are some other sections, you know, that kind of concern me. And I'm just going to speak to this real quick. And it's been mentioned, the part, and this is on page three, the part about the negligent homicide. And that's troubling. Like I said, it's already been talked about today. Several people, witnesses before me have referenced this.
But I worked in the prosecuting attorney's office for five years, a long time ago, right out of college. And that, you know, negligent homicide, like someone said, I don't know who said it, but it could be a traffic accident, and someone is not intent, the intent is not to, you know, kill someone, but if you're in a traffic accident or whatever, they can be charged with negligent homicide. So that one is, you know, I don't know if the bill is looking at having any amendments or what have you, but that would definitely be something that is somewhat troubling to me.
But anyway, that's just the part I wanted to lift up, and we would love to see some more community conversations, some, you know, have other people have some input in this. And, you know, the way these bills are coming through here, we just feel like, you know, just run them through. We don't feel like we're getting to be a part of the process. I got to make it today. But a lot of the people that wanted to come and just share and be a part of this, they hadn't even got to read the bill, you know.
And so we want to definitely protect that process and not just, you know, file bills. And, you know, we went through this with Arkansas Learns. And it's just so frustrating to the regular ordinary people. And I know half the legislators hadn't read it either. But anyway, those are my comments on this bill. All right. Ms. Celia, can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. In
your own personal opinion, what would you say is the best way to stay out of prison?
Speaker 39
1:12:43
To stay out of prison? To stay out of prison. Don't violate the laws. All
Kamara Seals
Unverified
1:12:49
right. Oh, that's simple. I, you know, I just, but when they go to prison, sir, and they serve their time, when they come out, they need to be, you know, we need them trained and prepared. I totally agree with that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no, I understand, no, I understand
Speaker 206
1:13:03
about that, yeah, I understand. Any other questions from committee?
Ms. Seagli, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. All right, that, that concludes.
Is there anyone else in the audience who was signed
Jim Hudson
Unverified
1:13:34
up to speak for or against? My name is Jim Hudson. I'm the Ashley County Judge. And on behalf of the County Judges Association of Arkansas, we are totally in support of this bill. What it does is it helps us get rid of the misdemeanors in our jails, freeze it up.
I have a speech here that I wrote down. But what I've been listening to all day is this word recidivism, and everybody's throwing it out there. Let's get it where it really is. Repeat offenders. And if we can't control our repeat offenders, the reason why we can't is because our county jails are full and we cannot punish them. If you do a crime, so what? We're going to slap you on the hand, turn you loose because we don't have room for you.
And what this does is it opens up our county jails and our county funds to do other things to where we can protect the citizens of the county. And that's
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:14:42
it. All right, committee, any questions from committee?
Thank you for your testimony. All right, that concludes all the witnesses who were signed up to speak for against the bill.
Senator Gilmore, you want to go ahead and go to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:15:09
the end of the table? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. I know that this has been a long day for not only you, but also the folks that have sat here to hear this bill and to debate this bill, and I appreciate all of the comments and remarks on it. I think that it certainly indicates how serious it is, a piece of legislation. So with that, I'm not going to
belabor the point. I know there's other committees going on. Members have other bills that they need to get to and need to be heard. But I'll just close with this. This bill, I think, is not the end-all be-all. It is definitely the start. And it's something that I'm assuming will have to be tweaked over time, but it is certainly a start that is much needed. I said before, I think it brings order to chaos. It certainly brings transparency to the system. It certainly
accounts for victims who are oftentimes forgotten. And it also includes many provisions in here as it relates to reducing recidivism, mental health components. You know, one of the things that was brought up in testimony was the section where it lists some of the programming and it says May. Well, the reason that's in there is, as we said earlier in testimony, we want to make sure that it's not just inclusive of those things, and we want to make sure that those programmings that are in there are programming that inmates can actually get jobs in
or feel that they can actually go and be in that field of employment once they leave incarceration. So there was a lot of thought put into this by a House colleague who's sitting over there, Jimmy Gasway, and I spent a lot of time on this bill. In fact, we started working on this bill last year. We sought input from defense attorneys to prosecutors to sheriffs to just anyone who actually wanted to reach out, even so much as last night. And I'll tell you, we've spent a lot of time, and it's been no secret that we've been working on this legislation for quite some time.
And so you've heard the testimony. You've heard the prosecutors speak for. I don't know necessarily when the last time was. I'm sure this wasn't the first that 28 out of 28 prosecutors were for a bill. I think that says a lot. You had sheriffs speak in favor of the bill. I think that says a lot. You had county judge speak in favor of the bill from the county judges association. You have a lot of people that are ready for change, much needed change, who know that the system is broken, is not working, and we have to fix it, and this is a good step.
So members, with that, I am closed. I make a motion to pass, and I would ask for
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:17:44
a favorable vote. All right. We have a motion to pass in
a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. The bill passes. Thank you, members. Yes. Gary.
Speaker 218
1:18:06
Yeah. I don't blame you for it. I hope you don't
Speaker 39
1:18:13
stay up here forever. I hope you don't stay up here forever. My foot is swollen. It's blood broken. I
Speaker 222
1:18:21
gave them my word. I heard at least two or three of
Speaker 116
1:18:31
them, they start taking a long time at my mind. Set a time limit, Gary. I would talk next.
I would say. Senator Clark, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 237.
Speaker 232
1:19:27
probably Mr. Chair all right Ladies and
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:19:34
gentlemen, we are still in committee meeting here.
Senator Clark, if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, you are
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:19:45
recognized. Mr. Chair, Senator Finkbiner, I don't know if he's left
or just stepped out of the room. Could we move down into the 400s? Sure. Which 400? 430. All right, 430. I'm going to ask the chair's permission to
have Clint Lancaster come up to help present this bill. All right, Mr. Lancaster, if you
Speaker 44
1:20:09
want to go and introduce yourself for the record.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:20:16
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Clint Lancaster. And I'm sorry, I didn't
Speaker 242
1:20:30
introduce myself, Mr. Chair. Alan Clark, Senate District
Speaker 243
1:20:38
7. Thank you, sir. So this is a bill about changing how we do recounts and election contests. So recounts are what happens after the election, before certification.
Election contests are the legal challenges to the results of an election. Our election contest statutes date back to Reconstruction. Literally, they date back to Reconstruction. That's when they were created, and that's when they got their genesis. Shortly after that time, when the Republicans controlling the legislature then created those, they lost control for many years, as we all know, and the Democrats over the time period basically gutted election contests.
It is practically impossible to have a successful election contest in the state of Arkansas. The last one I found was back in either the early 2000s or 1990s. And so what you end up seeing is you have very, and they gutted it by killing it by technicality. So there are special proceedings and they require strict compliance, but they've made them so strict, The judiciary has interpreted that to be so strict that you cannot comply with them. Any defect is fatal.
And so this policy has created to where election contests are desired not to hear them. They're looking for ways to get rid of them. And that doesn't do anything to restore the electorate's confidence in their elections and the ability to see what has happened. So this bill would change that. So, this bill, what it will do is it will do two things. It will be an issue with recounts and then an issue with election contests.
Now, the way that they're drafted and it's different is that you cannot bring an election contest if you did not bring an election recount. In other words, if you didn't recount the ballots to determine what the problem was, you don't have the ability to bring an election challenge. This bill also changes recounts. Recounts are the big deal right now is you can only bring them if you have the candidate can bring it, the people cannot. So this bill changes that to where 10 voters could bring a recount if they believe their vote was stolen somehow to determine that.
However, they must pay for it in advance. So that's the broad overview of these bills. I know that y'all have been very kind to be here so late, and so that's the abbreviated version. All right, committee, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:23:25
Any questions? Senator McKee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:23:33
I think we're on 430, right? Correct. Mr. Lancaster, you and I spoke a little bit ago about how I could find 10 people to agree with me on just about anything I decided to have them agree with me on.
Yes, sir. I remember that conversation. And I haven't had a chance to communicate that with Senator Clark yet, but I would really like to see that threshold raised to a certain percentage of the voters that are registered or something of that
Speaker 243
1:24:07
sort. The biggest I've been thinking about that, and my biggest thought process is, is how many percentage? you know is it is it 10 of the voters because like for example in saline county we had roughly
20 000 votes you know is that 2 000 elected that i would 2 be okay i don't know i don't
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:24:31
have a good answer to that i just know that 10 is too low i know i'm throwing arbitrary things out there right now but sure um i would i would possibly deal
with some county clerks and election commission officials well they're probably not going
Speaker 243
1:24:47
to say favorable things but um about this bill but i i would say that i am amenable to making something a change of recommending a change of like two
percent because that would still be 200 if i'm look i went to law school so i wouldn't
Speaker 247
1:25:01
have to do math again even that seems like a more reasonable number two percent would be like
200 Senator McGee Senator Tucker you have a question thank you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:25:22
Mr. Chair I'm just going to ask one question we've been here a long time sorry I didn't have this answer for you but on page 3
of the bill lines 17 and 18 and 19 if the back of a voted pre-printed paper ballot has not been initialed by a poll worker the ballot shall be presumed fraudulent and shall not be counted my concern there is it just gives it a little too much power to the poll worker the poll worker just might not initial a ballot or they might do it by mistake and either way that person's ballot won't be counted and i think you
and i've had this conversation before i don't ever want a fraudulent vote to ever be counted But if there's a legitimate voter out there who's cast their ballot, I want 100% of those votes to be counted. And that's the balance we're obviously trying to strike. And my concern there is either negligently or you could have a bad actor poll worker who just says, oh, I know that person's not for
my guy. I'm not going to initial his ballot. That's my concern.
Speaker 247
1:26:28
So to address those concerns, Senator, the statute that's cited there says shall.
Speaker 243
1:26:33
It says they shall initial the back of the ballot. Now, when I was in Wisconsin for President Trump's recount, I can't tell you how many ballots I saw that were not properly initialed by clerks. And what did they say? Oh, it was an accident. Or, oh, it was clerk error. I can't believe that that many clerks did that many errors. I mean, the number was around 100,000 ballots out of Dane County, which is Madison alone. So the point I'm making here is if there's not a penalty or a position, you have no way to ferret out fraudulent ballots.
But when you're in that recount, if you had a way to know that this ballot, in other words, in Arizona and Carrie Lake's race, there's a big issue about the size of the ballot ran through the tabulator. Some were like 17 inches and some were like 17.25. No ballots are supposed to be, they're all supposed to be one size. so you could take those ballots that are of a different size know they're fraudulent know the vote and draw that vote down to be accurate and that's what this does as well i think that if we
put up a sign or you tell a voter getting a paper this is only paper ballots which are right at the moment few
Speaker 257
1:27:48
then they would know they better look just like the
Speaker 260
1:28:02
poll worker says um hey check your votes before you stick it in the tabulator.
Speaker 262
1:28:21
Okay, yes, I'm Scott Gray on behalf of the Saline County Republican Committee. This is a brilliant bill by Senator Clark and Representative Hawke. With all of the legitimate questions over the 2020 and 2022 elections, this bill finally gives the people a way to verify an election. The last few years taught us that court challenges rarely produce any results, as judges typically prefer to dismiss election contests due to standing or venue. SB 430 will calm many voters who rightfully so might be suspicious of an election result for one reason or another.
With all the calls paid by the electors, the county is out nothing and the public can rest assured of a correct result. This bill returns power to the people where it should be and sets forth a specific process for counties to follow. If you're serious about election integrity, you'll pass SB 430 and reassure a skeptical public. Thank you.
Speaker 264
1:29:42
Laura Wiles, Faulkner County Election Coordinator. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits that recount petition from requesting a recount of every race on every ballot from every precinct. Potentially, you could have a group of people who request a recount for a statewide race in every county in the state. on page two this
Speaker 265
1:30:08
bill takes away the county board of election commissioners right to determine that
Speaker 264
1:30:14
they want to have their own recount also it says within 48 hours after a petition for recount is filed that the county board of election commissioners excuse me i'm reading on the wrong line. On page 2, line 10 through 12, this would allow someone to come to the election commission meeting at the deadline to certify and before that certification takes place to request the recount. On page 3, regarding initialing the back of a ballot that is currently
in law, but the current law does not state that a ballot that is not initialed by the issuing poll worker or clerk would be automatically considered fraudulent. This bill would make that a fraudulent
Speaker 265
1:31:06
ballot. On page five, this states that any ballot with an overvote or an undervote, and it lists
Speaker 264
1:31:20
many other items would be a reason to challenge a ballot. There is no way when you are recounting
a ballot to know who voted that ballot. We have secret ballots. The proper time for a ballot to be challenged is by a poll watcher before the voter signs the poll book. It also states that A recount cannot continue for more than 12 hours in a day. In the recount that Faulkner County conducted in November of 22, we did have a day that we did go over 12 hours because we knew we could get it wrapped up.
So we went ahead and finished. That was on a Saturday. We wanted to get that recount complete so that the candidates knew what the count was. On page 6, it states that after the recount is complete, THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHALL CERTIFY THE RESULTS OF THE RECOUNT WITHIN 48 HOURS? WHAT IF THAT'S BEFORE THE DEADLINE TO CERTIFY?
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:32:32
THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. ANY QUESTION FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? All
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:32:51
right. Seeing none. Mr. Chair. Yes. On page five, you mentioned if there's in our bill, it says if there's an overvote on the ballot, that's a reason to challenge it. Is that not a reason to challenge it? No, sir.
Speaker 264
1:33:06
what is an overvote an overvote is when someone marks two like if there's two candidates then there could be a
Speaker 272
1:33:15
mark on that ballot for both candidates and that does happen sometimes
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:21
people fill in both ovals true but is that not an irregularity
Speaker 264
1:33:29
to to challenge well it does happen and how would you know why would you think that that was automatically fraudulent sometimes people just make mistakes they put that in they also sometimes make notes about which they may vote
both and then they may make a note that says not this one this is the one that i want rather than calling and requesting for a new ballot to be sent to them because they accidentally over voted their
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:51
ballot and on the initial and on the back the the law does say that shall right i don't
have that that wording in front of me okay well I thought that was something you would know but but we were just read that it says shall and so if it says shall
there's not a choice right it has to be and I'm I'm with you and with Senator Tucker I don't want my vote or anybody's vote who's a legitimate vote not to be counted on the other hand we've been told that there's been places where there's a hundred thousand ballots that seems like a lot of plate a lot of ballots that somebody forgot to mark and is there some other way because okay
let's say there's one or two okay one or
two okay then whoever's doing it messed messed up. But what if there's hundreds? If we had this bill, there would be good reason to challenge. If we
don't have this bill, and those hundreds are fraudulent, and it would seem likely that they would be, they just get
Speaker 264
1:35:19
counted, don't they? This bill states that it would be presumed fraudulent. So a poll worker error could cause
a ballot to automatically be presumed fraudulent. Yes, but let's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:35:29
go back to what we're trying to prevent, where they had 100,000 in one county. Didn't happen here, but if
we just had hundreds, okay, that's not likely to be poll worker error, but there's nothing currently in law
to exclude those ballots. I'm not aware
Speaker 264
1:35:49
of any instances of that happening in the state of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:35:54
arkansas i don't know of the balloon from china flying over arkansas either but
it did fly over part of the united states so the fact
that it you do recognize that it did happen in other
Speaker 264
1:36:07
parts of the country our absentee ballot procedures are not the same as in other parts of the country and these ballots that we're talking about or you're initially in the back are the pre-printed paper ballots and for most counties that's what's used for your absentee ballots and only absentee ballots would
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:29
you explain that again okay this statute is election
Speaker 282
1:36:33
day ballots pre-printed ballots that was clarified in
Speaker 264
1:36:35
in code yes sir it's the pre-printed paper ballots actually i think that i don't have that section directly
Speaker 282
1:36:43
in front of me um but it is the pre it does refer to pre-printed paper ballots
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:50
okay but so let me get this straight if it's never happened here we
shouldn't worry about it is that is that the position and who do you you represent not just yourself
Speaker 283
1:37:06
right i'm the election coordinator for faulkner county okay i
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:37:09
just thought you might be speaking for
more people the because i'm trying to figure if the position is that if it's never happened that we know of let's change
that back that we that we know of because i remember i mean within three weeks of being in the state senate there was testimony on the senate floor that there had never
been voter fraud in arkansas and i'm like there's books in the library about voter fraud and did it and and how it was committed and i've got a very interesting story in my first election
about fraud so but i guess if you don't know about it it didn't happen is that correct
Speaker 264
1:37:52
i believe what i stated was that our absentee ballot procedures in the state of arkansas are not the same as the procedures in other states and then i did not feel that a ballot should automatically be presumed fraudulent and this doesn't take out any discretion by the Election Commission. It makes it where it has to automatically be presumed fraudulent. But we should be
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:14
following the law. Yes. And our
procedures require that those ballots be checked off on the back. Do you think you think there's
Speaker 282
1:38:28
no reason for that? I believe there is a reason for that and I I support that reason
Speaker 264
1:38:33
for that, but I do also understand that there is human error, and it is possible when you issue 500 ballots, that one could be missed. And in the recount, that ballot would
Speaker 274
1:38:42
automatically be considered fraudulent, so you're not allowing any discretion by the Election Commission at that time.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:47
Okay, well, I will add something here, Senator Tucker. If it's one that's missed, I will let you miss my ballot for the hopes that if there's
500, that we catch it. any other question
from committee seeing none thank you ma'am all right
no one else in the audience wish to speak for against the bill
If you will state your name and who you're with, you'll be
Speaker 294
1:39:43
recognized. I'm Gene Haley. I'm sorry. I'm Gene Haley. I'm chairman of the Garland County Election Commission and also serve as election coordinator. The election commission has no problem with recounts.
Speaker 295
1:39:59
The problem is 10 voters. I think, like Senator McKee said, I think it's pretty easy to find 10 voters to agree on anything. And the law also says that they must pay $2,500. Well, because of vote centers the way we operate today, it could cost $10,000 or $15,000 for a county to do a recount. and my fear is some out-of-state entity is going to come in and say go find ten
people and we'll pay the $250. So for about two or less than $200,000 they could could recount every race in the state of Arkansas and it would cost the counties over a million dollars to do that recount. That is my concern with the 10 voters and with the only $2,500 count because using vote centers it does require a recount of the the entire election because those votes those votes are segregated by the location where the vote was placed in anybody in the county
can vote in any location so therefore you would have to get 60,000 votes to recount a JP race you would have to count all 60,000 votes to find out for sure which ones that race was involved with. It also says that anybody that's dissatisfied, most losers are probably going to be dissatisfied. And most paper ballots today are absentee ballots, and I don't believe the county clerks required
the initial aback of those before they're sent out. Election Day ballots, absolutely that is that is the current law and I also have a question about on page five the recount shall be transcribed by a certified court reporter whose record shall be the official record of the you know that's that's something new that we have no idea what that will cost and it certainly increases the the $2,500 limit that's all we can collect to do this recount
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:42:11
Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Haley, the $2,500 is what a candidate pays up front for
a recount, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, which the candidate can already do. Correct. Okay. But under this bill, are you not aware that those 10 people, and that people have talked about, they may do this in elections widespread.
I always find when it comes to people's pocketbooks, they're not nearly as free. That these 10 people have to put up the full cost, estimated full cost, up front of the election. Up to $2,500. No. No, the estimated full cost up front, and that's paying the workers double minimum wage. Is that
Speaker 298
1:43:10
what this law changes, that law, the law that says that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:43:14
$2,500 is the limit? It doesn't change the $2,500 for the candidate, but for the citizens, if 10 citizens come forward,
they have to put up double whatever y'all would, if y'all estimate it's going to cost this, Is it double or what they say? The double is the
Speaker 300
1:43:31
amount they get paid. It's double what they get paid, but they have to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:43:36
put up that whatever. If you say we believe it's going to cost $20,000, they've got to
Speaker 295
1:43:42
put up $20,000. So then why wouldn't an election commission say it's going to cost $200,000 every time? There needs to be some sort of, you know what I'm saying? There needs to be something in there to say, you know, this is fair and equitable.
I have no problem with recounts. I do have a problem with 10 people. But, and if the 20, I'm not aware that that $2,500 is not a limit, because for a candidate, it's up to $2,500, and that's it. There's the motion in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:44:09
charge. Well, no, that was part of the assurance here, is that if citizens come forward, they've got to put their money where their mouth is. Correct. And it's not just $2,500. dollars and and the
reason that election commission wouldn't say two hundred thousand dollars is because we only put people like you because i know you well on election commission who are honest
and are going to give us a good as their best estimate of what the election is going to cost uh and uh but i know
you think that that citizen participation is very important absolutely and citizen trust in elections is very important and their ability to have a recount
on their own whatever problems you think it might cause do you think that would add to trust? I think it would but
Speaker 295
1:44:58
I think it's a problem when you you it takes less people to contest election than it does to
Speaker 294
1:45:04
file to run for school board. Would you be happy if it were 20? I would or 25 or 50
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:12
some number than 10 absolutely I wouldn't have a problem with 20. okay thank you mr. Haley I
appreciate your service any other question from committee seeing none Senator
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:34
Clark you want to close for you Bill yes thank you mr. chair and
and thank y'all for your patience and indulgence. This is a very good bill. The ability for the citizens to question the results. You know, every time that we change anything, I remember school choice 10 years ago, that we were gonna have this mass exodus of kids from public school. And of course, they're still saying that again today. And of course, it didn't happen. It's always everything is, you know, we're going to, they're going to challenge every election.
Well, they can't challenge every election in the state unless they won't spend lots of money. And what would be the purpose? The, but what they do want
is they want to have insurance that what happened in these other states doesn't happen here. And if it does, that they can check it out. That they can get together, come up with the money and say, let's recount this election. And I can tell you if I'm one of these people, I'm going to recount as few as I
can because I want to spend as little money as I can.
I want to count just enough to know that things were done right. And
I would also add, as a candidate who lost an election by, I think, six votes, candidates who lose don't always feel bad about things. But I think especially at this time in our country that
it's important that we tell our citizens
you can check things out. We don't just trust the election commission, we don't just trust the judges, we don't just trust the legislature, we trust the people. And this gives them a valid avenue and I think it's a good one. If somebody had suggested that we do a voice amendment 20, I'd put 20 in here instead of 10, but without that, we'll go with the 10. So I would appreciate
a good vote, and I move do pass. All right. We have a motion
do pass. Do we have a second?
I'll second it. All right. We have a motion do pass and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:48:07
aye. Aye. All opposed? No. SEN. CLARK, LOOKS LIKE YOUR BILL FAILS. THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMITTEE. I'LL RUN SENATE BILL 431.
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:48:26
I'LL ASK YOUR PERMISSION FOR MR. LANCASTER TO HELP. this bill i'm clint lancaster still uh this
Speaker 243
1:48:33
bill uh well it's always use a record you know you got to make sure sometimes i wonder so this bill does something with absentee ballots it gets rid of designated bearers a designated bearer is somebody who can come to the clerk's office and pick up an absentee ballot for anybody all they have to do is fill out the required forms i this does not now
if you are sick in the hospital or in home health, there's this thing called an authorized agent that allows that person to get your ballot, your absentee ballot, and take it to you and bring it back. Okay, nursing home administrators can get ballots for their residents who want to vote. This bill, all it does is remove the ability for someone to show up and get an able-bodied voters ballots and take it to them and bring it back. Some of the craziest things I have heard
or seen or been a part of include people coming and getting ballots for their parents and bringing them back when we know their parents were not mentally competent. I have I have heard that somebody likes this this statute because it allows a woman to show up and get two ballots for her college-age kids to vote on when they come home. I don't know why two college-age kids need their mother to get their ballot when they're obviously able-bodied enough to go to college and get their own ballot.
This statute and this bill, what it does is it closes a loophole for ballot harvesters. When that absentee ballot leaves the clerk's office with a third party for an able-bodied voter, There is no security or oversight. And this bill, getting rid of this designated bearer, will make our elections more secure. I have heard someone say that approximately 9% of their voters vote by this designated bearer status.
9% in an election. In Saline County, 9% of 20,000 votes is pretty substantial. Knowing that we've all seen close races. Races by 6 votes, 10 votes, 12 votes, 9% of those ballots can flip those races. That means 9% of fraudulent ballots can flip a race. If you don't close this, if we don't close this, we are just opening ourselves up for fraud that we almost can't even track, but that we know occurs.
All right. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Any
questions from committee? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for against the bill?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:28
Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you. So I'm not familiar with this provision, so bear with me if you would. How are you able to get
Speaker 247
1:51:38
an absentee ballot currently? So the statute says there's a number of ways.
Speaker 243
1:51:44
You can request by mail. I believe you can request in person. You can have a nursing home administrator. You can have the authorized agent for medically infirm, or you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:56
can have a designated bearer. Okay. So this bill is only removing, as I see it, I think you stated, it's just removing the designated bearer? Yes, sir. That's correct.
Speaker 247
1:52:06
Okay. So it's leaving in the mail? It's leaving in what other? It's leaving in all of
Speaker 243
1:52:12
them except designated. And that's consistent with other states that have absentee value.
First off, absentee voting is not a right. It's a privilege. Your right is to vote at the polls on election day. So what this does is it restricts those to more consistent with other states that allow for, say, the medically infirm or mail-in if you can't make it to the polls. But there's just, this is just this, I haven't really seen this anywhere else that just allows someone else to pick up a ballot. And I understand it's limited to just two people.
but you know as i said someone said nine percent got two that's two ballots at nine percent that's still nine percent maybe that didn't answer your question maybe i threw something no i think i i
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:53:01
think it sort of did answer my question i was just thinking of the other different ways to get an absentee ballot so that was thank you that's helpful if i might add senator
Speaker 243
1:53:12
gilmore part of what we're doing here is we're having a competency check so it you know there's is the voter competent enough to request an absentee ballot through the mail? If the answer to that is yes, then we should
have some security knowing they're competent enough to vote that ballot. If they aren't competent enough to request their own ballot through the mail, then there's a serious question about whether they're competent enough to vote that ballot or if somebody else is voting that ballot. And I can sit here and talk for hours on elderly people who have been exploited by that type of voting system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:53:50
Haven't we seen in recent years, though, in other states, which is kind of what all of this is about,
people have given maybe some reason to not be real trustworthy of requesting and or sending in their ballots by mail? Yes, that's true. You're not going to get rid of all the fraud that's out there, but
Speaker 243
1:54:08
you're going to close one of the available avenues to those who would commit fraud, just like you did by getting rid of drop boxes. Aren't we going to discourage voters? I don't think you will discourage voters. If they want to vote, then they will get their ballot in the mail like everybody else or something along those lines.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:54:29
I'm just saying those people that don't trust the mail to deliver their ballot, once they've filled it in, you're going
to lose a lot of voters. Why is it that they can't come to
Speaker 243
1:54:39
the clerk's office and request it themselves? I mean, there's so many other options that have a higher security, and if we're to err, it should
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:54:47
be on the side of caution. I guess I would just ask why if we trust a hospital administrator to bring in any number of ballots, we wouldn't trust a mother to pick up two ballots for her kids
or a daughter to pick up a couple ballots for their elderly parents who may not be medically infirm but may not get out and about or we may be going through circumstances like we had with COVID. or it's flu season or whatever it is just you know we've we're allowing hospital administrators or nursing home administrators to pick up any number and then we're eliminating this other option well if
Speaker 321
1:55:28
you would like to like senator clark said if you want to make a voice motion
to amend that to include those i won't object so like
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:55:36
if i made a voice motion to just eliminate the line through all the designated barriers language you go along with that no not that one okay i didn't think so thank you all right any other questions from committee uh mr what is your
Speaker 246
1:56:01
name my name is carl watson okay mr watson if
you want to sit down and If you want to sit down and identify yourself again
Carl Watson
Unverified
1:56:07
and tell us who you are with. Well, thank you. Identify yourself and who you're
Speaker 327
1:56:19
with and your recognized speak. My name is Carl Watson. I am from the flower pot of Jefferson County. We have two flowers in our pot. I would like to reference specifically one particular election in one particular district in our county,
specifically the last general election and specifically the Justice of the Peace election for District 6 in Jefferson County. Since we're talking about absentee ballots and also the subject of ballot harvesting, and since the subject was brought up of nursing facilities and things of that nature. In Jefferson County Justice of the Peace District No. 6, there are 11 precincts in that district.
One of those voter precincts happens to be about 300 yards from the Trinity Village Nursing Facility, basically on the same property as the Trinity Village Nursing Facility that is divided into a couple of different sections. They have a critical care nursing facility, but they also have several outlying buildings that are basically just assisted living apartment-type buildings.
I have observed throughout the day on our last general election, staff members from the nursing facility out with patients who were just on assisted living for their daily walk, taking them to the polls. going to the polls to do their voting. But also, I have seen staff members from the nursing facility
going to the polls with boxes and ballots to take to the polls that were supposed to be absentee ballots for people who were not able to go vote themselves. people whose family members within a couple of weeks after the election let me know that there's no way their family member could have ever cast that vote because their family member is not even coherent family member has alzheimer's dementia doesn't even know who they are when they
go to visit their family members at that facility that's one issue that i have another issue that i have is the fact that in the last redistricting of that particular JP district, it ended up with a severely drastic, jagged line in that district because one of the people who would previously held that position as the justice of the peace was not elected to that position. They were appointed to that position because we had a justice of the peace who was deceased
and we had to have an appointee to fill that position. And in order for that person who was appointed to fill that position to be eligible to run for that position later, they had to live in that district. And lo and behold, when the redistricting line got drawn, their neighborhood ended up being in that jagged edge that got rezoned. Instead of a straight line now, it looks like a big block was added in. That's another issue that I had.
The next issue that I had was the fact that on that election day in our last general election, and this is the last point that I have, I burned two tanks of gas that day, visiting different polling places, just observing, not going in, just watching what was going on. and in that particular election in that district the numbers indicate that there were
1,714 ballots cast of the numbers I haven't been able to get the numbers of how many of those votes would have been actual people who voted that day on election day or were people who voted early or people who mailed in ballots that were absentee ballots.
But if there were 1,714 ballots cast in that election, they didn't do it that day because the people working the polls that day were playing bingo, playing solitaire, and playing games on their phones because they were not busy that day. Thank you. All right, Senator Tucker, you have a question? Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:34
you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask you, sir, your
opening comment about the flower pot, was that a snide remark about
Senator Flowers and Representative Flowers? No, no, not at all. Okay. Not at all. All right, just
Speaker 330
2:01:46
making sure. Thank you. But it was just, I
Speaker 285
2:01:49
am represented by both of Senator and Representative Flower. I just wanted to be sure I understood your tone properly. Thank you. That's not at
Speaker 330
2:01:56
all. All right. Any other members have questions? All right. We have Mr. Gray, if you'll
Speaker 332
2:02:12
go ahead and identify yourself for the record, you're recognized.
Speaker 262
2:02:28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Scott Gray on behalf of the Saline County Republican Committee. SB 431 is a common sense bill which attempts to prevent ballot harvesting. A member of our committee recently did some research on this topic through the FOIA laws and found that a large number of Saline County voters over the age of 85 who, after years of not voting, suddenly began voting by absentee ballot in 2020. One of them was 109 years old. Maybe all of these voters suddenly decided that Joe Biden was their guy.
I don't know. But if a nursing home resident legitimately wants to vote, this bill still allows him to do so while discouraging the ballot harvesting that we fully suspect is going on. Again, we thank Senator Clark for being a champion of election integrity and taxpayers' rights. This should be the easiest vote you'll make all session. All right.
Carl Watson
Unverified
2:03:24
Any questions from committee? Thank you for your testimony.
Is that it? All right, that's all the people we have signed up to speak for or against the bill.
So, we have some more that signed up. I was here late. I was in another meeting. I had signed up, but I would like to take my time to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:03:57
the charter. Ms. Wiles? Yes, sir. Yes, your name is on, I'm sorry. Your name is on the list.
Okay, if you want to go ahead and come to the table
Margaret Darter
Unverified
2:04:19
and identify yourself for the record. Is it on a red or green? My name is Margaret Darter. I'm Botner County Clerk. and I just have a couple things to address and one of them is our bears the bears in Faulkner County are mostly disabled seniors that live at home and it's generally their daughter their son or their husband coming to get their absentee ballot with the state of Arkansas has a very
good law in place where when they come in and and pick up a ballot or bring a ballot back they have to sign a book. They have to give us their name and address and date of birth and sign off and then give us the date of birth of the person that they're picking up for. And then when they come back, they have to show us their ID all over again and sign on that ballot that they are a designated bearer. I myself had to pick up a ballot for my mother. She was 91 years old. She was totally competent enough to vote, but she wasn't able to stand in line and vote out in a machine. Her legs
weren't strong enough to hold her. She wasn't at a nursing home. She lived at home. She was competent. And so to deny a 91-year-old lady or an 88-year-old lady or a 68-year-old lady or a man the right to vote because they need a barrier to assist them doesn't seem fair to me as a county clerk providing these ballots to people. And on the about a college student you know sometimes these college students are in Fayetteville or somewhere and they are in class they're working
and their parents are just trying to assist them and help them get their ballots we know most of these voters we know them and they still follow the law they follow the process and to deny them that process in our county it would affect about 125 people I say nine percent is a very strong number to say. In our county, it's 2% of the voters on that. So I don't think it would the fraud is happening
Speaker 342
2:06:17
with your bears. I mean, they have more laws to jump through
than any. All right. Committee, any questions from committee?
Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Watson, for your testimony. Anyone we
left out have signed up. all right seeing
Speaker 346
2:06:44
none center clark thank you mr chair the and members of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:50
the committee the bill is fairly simple and
trying to close a door to fraud uh and i'm not going to belabor the point anymore at this late hour i would appreciate a good vote and i make a motion do pass
Carl Watson
Unverified
2:07:08
all right we have a motion of floor to pass we have
a second second any discussion all those in favor say aye aye all
Carl Watson
Unverified
2:07:22
opposed no bill fails center clark thank
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
SB 435. Senator Clark, could I impose
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:36
upon you just for a second? We have a gentleman, a rep, who said he would do his
Speaker 348
2:07:46
bill in one minute. I don't like him. Well,
Carl Watson
Unverified
2:07:51
he's against criminal justice, so we... No, Representative Gassaway can go right ahead.
All right. Thank you. Representative Gassaway, if you want to go
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:08:07
to the end of the table. What is your bill, Representative Gassaway? This is House Bill 1501. House Bill 1501. If you'll recognize yourself with the record. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Jimmy Gassaway, State Representative, District 31. All right. Do you recognize? Thank you. House Bill 1501 is a bill that came to our attention during the technical corrections process through the Code Revision Commission.
We were revising Title V of the Arkansas Code, and when we came across this section, realized that in 2021, when we made an amendment to this section concerning the statute of limitations for when a prosecution is commenced, that we had inadvertently stricken some language that covered warrantless arrests and citations. And so when we realized that we had accidentally stricken that language that had covered those, we went back, looked at this section, and then just decided to revise the entire section.
And so now this section, what we've done with this particular bill, takes into consideration every scenario which would encompass when a prosecution is commenced. And so that includes when a person is arrested or issued a citation by a law enforcement officer based upon probable cause, when an arrest warrant is issued by a judge provided that the arrest warrant is sought to be executed without unreasonable delay, or upon the filing of an indictment information or other charging instrument. Those are all accurate representations of when a prosecution is commenced according to the law as it exists. And it just more clearly sets that out
in statute. And again, fixes the inadvertent problem that we caused when we struck language by accident in 2021.
So that's all the bill does. And I'm happy to answer any questions. we have a motion we have a motion
we have a second discussion all those
in favor say aye all opposed represent the gives
Speaker 37
2:10:15
way your bill passes thank you mr chairman thank you committee
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:10:18
45 seconds over so my apologies to the committee that's quite all right Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:10:29
Clark, you want to run another? We may impose on you to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:10:40
let one more in. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Alan Clark, State Senate District 7. Senate Bill 435. We'll ask again if you'll allow Mr. Lancaster to...
Clint Lancaster
Unverified
2:10:53
Mr. Lancaster, do you want to introduce yourself? I
Speaker 243
2:11:00
checked just now. My name is Clint Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I? You're recognized. So Senate Bill 435 is another simple bill. It has the right to vote on a paper ballot. Amendment 50 to the Arkansas Constitution gives persons the right to vote or the right to vote on a machine. It's two separate things. There are a large number of people who do not trust the machines.
Whether their trust or their issues are valid or not, they don't believe the machine records their vote. When people stop believing their vote counts, they will stop voting. This bill does nothing other than comply with Amendment 50 and allow that person to vote on a paper ballot that is then going to be ran through a tabulator, just like every other ballot, and pursuant to Senate Bill 250, which I think is now Act 350. The tabulators that we're using at these election sites are the same in every county, DS200.
They will read the hand-drawn, the hand-marked ballots. They do that for absentee voting, and I know this because I was on the Saline County Election Commission. These machines will read the hand-marked ballots without a problem. They're set up to do that. So it's not, the only major complaint that you may hear is that, well, now I got to have a paper ballot on hand for, and I have a vote center with 30 different ballot styles. How will I ever, how will I ever get that done? Well, ES&S makes a machine that is already approved by the state of Arkansas.
It is called a ballot on demand printing device. It's basically a printer. yeah i think that people have a right to vote on paper ballots and that's what this does and it's not going to be some massive thing that changes how elections are done in arkansas it's not going to get rid of vote centers
Speaker 242
2:12:56
all it's going to do is let people vote on a piece of paper that want to vote on a piece
of paper okay all right gentlemen you've heard uh an explanation Committee, any questions?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:13:12
Anyone in the audience would like to
Speaker 357
2:13:17
speak for or against? Okay, Mr. Wiles. Not Mr. Wiles. I'm Gray.
Speaker 359
2:13:21
He can go ahead. Mr. Gray. Is that okay?
Speaker 262
2:13:29
Yep, go ahead. All right. I'm brief. Scott Gray, every legal Arkansas voter should have the right to a paper ballot. Elderly people have a difficult time with touchscreens, while others have a healthy distrust for voting computers. Voting by paper ballot would also allow the voter to know that the selection made was accurate
because the voter filled out the ballot himself. A paper ballot is the ultimate demonstration of voter intent. If counties were able to provide paper ballots in the past, they should be able to provide a paper ballot now for those who request it. We support this bill. Yeah, from a time
Speaker 362
2:14:04
or two you testified, you said you work for the Saline County Election Commission, or what did you say? No, on
Speaker 262
2:14:13
behalf of the Saline County Republican Committee. Okay, thank you.
And our members overwhelmingly support these bills. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Yes, sir. Do you
Speaker 264
2:14:44
want to state your name? Yes, sir. Again? Laura Wiles, Faulkner County Election Coordinator.
A major concern with this bill is the cost of the ballot-on-demand printers. Each polling site would have to have, throughout the entire state, would have to have a minimum of two of those printers. Your large locations would need to have more than that. So that's a tremendous cost. Who's going to pay for that? Some counties, that's going to be a huge burden to them. There would also be additional equipment that would have to be purchased. And who's going to pay for that?
Another concern with ballot-on-demand printers is that if that printer is not set just right, when it prints the ballot, a poll worker is not going to notice that it's not set just right. but that tabulator is the tabulator is not going to count that ballot so then the poll worker is going to have to have the voter put that ballot in a separate compartment and that ballot is later going to have to be duplicated by the election commission a county could also choose to just say hey we're going to just have pre-printed paper ballots at the polling location
Um, just as an example, in the primary of 2022, in Faulkner County, we had 438 ballot styles. We have 22 early vote and election day sites. sites. So if I'm trying to provide, I would have to be able to provide 438 ballot options at
Speaker 284
2:16:18
each location. Then if I'm going to say, well, I'm going to just give you 20,
then that's 8,760 ballots, pre-printed paper ballots that
Speaker 264
2:16:32
I have to provide for each vote Center. I think that's a very conservative number if you're trying to provide the pre-printed ballots. Another major concern on this, you know, in elections we have a lot of, we plan for a lot of contingencies. We're always looking at that. But if for some reason there's, let's say both of your ballot on demand printers jam up and you're going into your backup mode to get a pre-printed
paper ballot over to the voting location, I mean, I think that this could be interpreted that that's refusal to provide
Speaker 284
2:17:09
that, which would be considered a Class A misdemeanor and an infamous crime.
Speaker 272
2:17:17
But my main concern is how Howard County is going to pay for this.
Next we have Roger Kidd, not here, Donnie Scroggins, not here. I
Speaker 321
2:17:58
know Mr. Scroggins, Mr. Chair, that was not him.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:02
Okay. All right. Seeing no one else signed up. Senator Clark,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:18:14
are you ready to close? I am,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:18:30
so right now, voters can request an absentee ballot on the day of the election,
but it's counted as a provisional ballot. It's still counted as a vote. So, understanding the concerns that have been addressed or brought up here, incurring additional costs on our counties and inconvenience to voters, to be honest, by requiring this, wouldn't it be better to make some kind of a tweak to that law with respect to the absentee ballots?
wouldn't that be a better possibility than what we're trying to do
Speaker 243
2:19:17
here what we're doing here will harmonize the two statutes have to be read in harmony so no longer will be a provisional ballot it will be a ballot that gets tabulated just like every other ballot and what's to me what's ironic about it is what we're doing is exactly what they're already doing so when When Ms. Weil says this is going to cost us a bunch of money, how do we do it?
People can show up and ask for the same thing. So all we're doing is making a harmonic blend so that people can exercise their right to vote on a paper ballot and know that it's not a provisional ballot. I don't understand how... I mean, ES&S has warranties on these ballot-on-demand machines. If yours breaks, they have to bring you another one on election day or come fix
Speaker 242
2:20:06
it on the spot. It's in the contract with the SOS.
Sarah Moore
Unverified
2:20:18
Any other questions from the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:20:24
committee? Seeing none, Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a subject I can speak
to. You know, I smile inside every time somebody tells me or just speaks out in public about how all of our elections are all safe now and everything's secure and there's no problems.
I tend to believe that. But in 1992, I ran for office for the first time. and I'd been involved in the local Republican County Committee, and I'd sat down with candidates who had horror stories about what had happened to them on Election Day. And they weren't in the very distant future, past. But we had fixed all of that.
About a month before the election, my dad called me into his office. We worked together. He said,
Son, I know you're excited, but I don't want you to
be disappointed. because they cheat. He said, I ran for a Democrat Central Committee
once, and somebody came in at noon and told me that there wasn't a lever by my name. And I said, Dad, we fixed all of that. It doesn't happen anymore.
And I believe that to be true. I got to my main polling place where I was going to get 75% of the vote and had to get 75% of the vote if I was going to win. Not long after it opened to find out that a relative was first in line. A relative was where three JP districts came together. And we had ascertained that she was in my district. absolutely positively no doubt about it but she got in to vote she couldn't pull
the lever by my name because those machines there were three different JP races three districts that came together close there and she couldn't pull the lever by my name and she said from inside the voting booth I can't pull the lever by Alan Clark's name so they of course said well then you're not supposed to be able to vote for Alan Clark and she said oh no no no I am I'm supposed to be able to vote for Alan Clark. They said, well, there's nothing we're gonna, we can do.
You're just gonna have to finish the convention. She said, if I pull this lever and come out, my vote's done and I'm not coming out, I'll vote for Alan Clark. They had a line out to the road. After 20 minutes of her refusing to come out, they finally got her a paper ballot. and she voted for me but we found out two hours later that they had done nothing about it and all the other people in line that were in my district still couldn't vote for me
and most people don't know what jp district they're in or even what a jp is so we called the election commission and a lot of these people who had horror stories i mean A big number of those who had horror stories told me how the election commissioners told them on the day of the election, you can file a challenge tomorrow. And then they found out the next day that that wasn't true. They had to file a challenge that day. And so the election commission came out two and a half hours after that and looked and said, there's nothing we can do.
And I said, what do you mean there's nothing we can do? All these people are lined up here in one of
my main polling places and they can't vote for me and they don't know. Nothing we can do. You can file a challenge tomorrow. My heart sank.
I was in the school office behind closed doors on the phone with the Republican Party's attorneys for hours. Trying to get it corrected.
And they came, what the officials could do was came in and
told me I had to leave where I'd be arrested. That I couldn't be in the polling place. Well, number one, that wasn't the law. The law said that I, as a candidate, could be a poll watcher, had every right to be in the poll, but they said I would be arrested. And I said, I'm behind closed doors. Nobody even knows I'm here. Well, you have to leave. And they said, well, you don't want your name in the paper tomorrow. Well, they didn't know me very well. I said, tomorrow, I won't care. Tomorrow I'll either be elected or I won't be elected, so call the sheriff.
Finally, at 2.30 that afternoon, they shut that machine down when
we wouldn't quit. And they let people vote on paper ballots. you can trust
the system as much as you want to trust the system and in fact I do but I certainly understand why people don't and they may be smarter than we are
because I thought I was smarter than my dad we got it all fixed but we didn't have it all fixed and that night I had 20 we found out what the law was
I had 20 notarized complaints because that's what it took to challenge an election and when it ended we found out that we had won so we didn't follow it and so people then I got here and people said there's
no election fraud because that machine was not an accident and not doing anything about it was not an accident. And I hope that now that we're doing things, that things are being done right. But I want to tell you, we're not all honest. There's a certain percentage of people in everything that's not. And if something's important, people will find a way to cheat. And the security that people can come in and say, I don't trust it. I just want a paper ballot. I don't care what it costs. Our freedom has cost a great deal.
more than money and it won't cost that much anyway those printers will print them out and if you're going to have what's the difference between having an absentee ballot and a another paper ballot i can take the smoke screens on other things i can take being wrong possibly on the other things i'm
not wrong on this one i would appreciate a good vote and i make a motion do pass all
right gentlemen we've you've heard we have a motion do pass have a second
have a second any discussion all those in favor say aye aye all opposed yeah your
Carl Watson
Unverified
2:28:13
bill passes senator clark thank you mr. chair thank you members of the committee senator
clark i'm going to indulge upon you
again you have more bills okay then thank you senator hammer you still
Speaker 43
2:28:37
awake senate bill 405 is it senate bill 405
Senator Hammer, if you'll state your name, your district, you're recognized. Kim Hammer,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:28:57
State Senator, District 16. And I have an amendment. I'm 405, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 176
2:29:09
Yes, you have one minute. Yes, sir. I have an amendment. Oh, you have an amendment? Yes, sir. Okay.
Has everybody got one? All right, Senator Hammer, if you want to go ahead and explain the amendment.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:29:52
Is this a bill we voted on earlier? It was
a bill that was discussed in this committee, pulled it down so that I could get this amendment prepared. I believe this addresses some of the concerns that the committee had as far as it going straight to being a felony. With this language, it would be a felony if these things that are listed in the amendment were to be present at the time. And this is something I worked out with the judges, the juvenile judges, of which they are fine with this.
And so that's the explanation of the amendment.
Speaker 188
2:30:27
Okay. Committee, any questions about the amendment? We have
a motion to adopt the amendment. We have a motion. Have a
second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:30:43
All opposed? All right. The amendment's been adopted. you recognize to explain the bill thank you mr chairman um bring
this on behalf of the juvenile judges um if you notice what the amendment does it get down just to the point is that it if a
person no person in this state are 18 years of age shall possess a handgun and if you drop down it's really going after the people that are the bad actors that are under 18 if you look at one has previously and previously and has previously pleaded so this is going to apply only to those that have that that previous record but also if you notice down there it says possesses a handgun while engaging in a criminal activity it'll allow the judges then to do the felony as it would apply to these and mr chairman i'll be glad to take questions our committee you've heard an explanation
Speaker 176
2:31:40
of the bill. Any questions? Is there anyone in the audience that
would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, we have a motion to do pass.
Have a second. As amended. As amended. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The bill passes, senator hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:32:11
thank you mr chairman i do have house bill 1516 for represent vaught but i'm
gonna go to the side and maybe if the chair would be latitude
later on i'll run it thank you senator penzo you have a bill
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:32:38
Mr. Penzo, if you'll state your name and district, you're recognized to present. Well, Senator Clint Penzo, District 31, if the committee would allow,
I'd like to pull Senate Bill 448 off the inactive list. it's a it's a code revision bill um is pull 480 off the inactive 448 448
off the inactive list all right we have a motion to take 448 off the inactive
list to put it on the active list please and a second
a second all those in favor say aye all opposed all right
Senate 448 will be placed on the active
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:33:24
list. You're recognized. Thank you. To run Senate Bill 448? Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I ran a bill two years ago, a trafficking bill that had a definition in it, which it competed with another definition that was already in statute. so code revision caught it asked us what we wanted the definition to be and so this is just
putting the definition back what it was before my bill passed two years ago should be non-controversial committee you've heard an explanation of what senator penzo did you
have any questions give a motion motion do pass have a second
any discussion all those in favor say aye all opposed
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:34:29
all right congratulations senator penzo thank you committee um can i also run senate bill 390 you pushed your luck i know it'll be quick it'll be quick i think that last one beat gas away okay so i've had this bill come through committee uh twice i believe or we've amended it I'm sorry. Senate Bill 390. Motion.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:35:08
bill. Okay. So this is the bill that created penalties for child labor violations if somebody violated before it was only a thousand dollar civil penalty so we've created some criminal charges like i said we've already passed that part out but we amended it to say that the the businesses knowingly were in violation that was a request
the business community so we've got that in there and then another change is we had And on, let's see, starting on page two, line 26, under J, there were previously five conditions that could trigger some penalties, and we reduced that down to just the one and two you see there. So we have omitted some sections at request of some senators.
Unknown speaker
2:36:12
Just ask for a good vote. Hang on just a second.
Thank you.
Speaker 396
2:37:13
All right, Senator Penzo, you're finished. I'm closed. All right, we have a motion to pass. We have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All
Speaker 144
2:37:28
opposed? Thank you, committee. Congratulations, Senator Penzo. All right. Senator Hammer. Still awake? how's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:37:45
bill 1560 mr chairman for the sake of time dhs has been sitting here while waiting
on this one could i get them to come
Speaker 401
2:38:08
to the table if you would identify yourself for the record State your name and who
Speaker 402
2:38:13
you're with. Yes, Chairman, Mr. Belfield. I'm Sarah Ross. I'm Deputy Chief Counsel at DHS, and I'm the primary in-house counsel for the Division of Children and Family Services.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:38:22
All right. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I'd like to do is just defer for the sake of time, and
Speaker 402
2:38:33
I think it'd be more expedient when we get right into the questions, and if that's okay. Okay. Thank you. So we provided technical assistance to Representative Vaught and Senator Hamer for this bill. And the bill eliminates anonymous reporting to the child abuse hotline due to some concerns around that. It then also increases the penalty for disclosure of confidential information, including reported, identified reporter information.
It also removes references to anonymous reporting. It amends the statute of limitations for prosecuting failure to notify by a mandated reporter. It adds any adult who witnesses abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation as a mandated reporter. It does protect victims of that same alleged offender from being prosecuted for failure to report. It removes the references to fax reporting and changes that language to online reporting, which is already what's in place.
And it does require the hotline to document reports of alleged abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation and forward to local law enforcement for criminal investigation if the alleged victim ends up being actually over the age of 18 but is still in school or in extended foster care. I think there was some concern that there were some hotline calls being made. They weren't being accepted because the alleged victim was actually an adult. they wanted to make sure that those were at least referred over to law enforcement
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:40:05
okay mr chairman can i just give you some quick numbers give the big
picture here to sure to maybe dispel any concerns as far as um the anonymous total reports made to the hotline this is 2022 we're 57,071 of those 6,307 or 11.1 percent were made anonymously of those 2,240, 35.5% were screened out, 4,067 or 64.5% were accepted for response, and of those, 3,212 were accepted for investigation, nine were still open at the time this data was pulled.
Of the 3,203 closed investigations, 395 or 12.3% were substantiated, 7.1% of all reports made to the hotline were anonymous reports accepted for response. I said all that to say this because this is what it gets down to. 0.7 percent of all reports made to the hotline were substantiated reports made by anonymous reporters. Part of the problem is that people are using the hotline when it comes to just a lot of, correct me if I'm wrong,
but a lot of cases it's a retaliatory effort maybe in a divorce situation or other situations where it's just being used in a retaliatory manner, which is not what the hotline is intended to do. And I just want to bring it back down and then go to questions. 0.7% of all reports made to the hotline were substantiated reports made by anonymous reporters. So it is just a fragment that we're talking about here. And we'll be glad to take questions. All right, committee, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Speaker 409
2:41:50
Any questions? Has that number always been that low? that's the 2022 do you know i'm
Speaker 411
2:42:02
not sure about the historical data that was the that was the latest was 2022 when that data was
yes sir all right any question from committee anyone in the audience which to speak for against seeing none of you close for your bill
Speaker 399
2:42:13
yes sir we'd appreciate a good vote all right chair would entertain a motion we have a motion do pass
has a second all those in favor any discussion all those in favor say aye aye all opposed congratulations
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:42:35
Senator Hamer your bill passes. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee especially
staying so late thank you. Representative Gassaway you have
Speaker 412
2:42:48
another bill? You're just what? come on up
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:42:51
here if i may mr chair a point of privilege i think he's uh going through
withdrawals from spending so much time in one room with me drafting a bill that he just can't bear to spend any more time
apart i've seen him in withdrawals this is not withdrawals. Senator Tucker,
you have a bill? Yes, sir. Yes. All right, Senator Tucker, you want to go ahead and state your
name and your district? You're recognized for that. What bill? Senate
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:43:27
Bill 469. Senate Bill 469. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clark Tucker, State Senator District 14. Members, I'll be very brief. This is directly related to
the bill we spent so much time on here today. Same subject matter. And that's addressing violent crime in Arkansas. Whatever your opinion of Senate Bill 495 might be, there was an issue that came up in the course of that discussion, which is that we only have a 39% clearance rate, which means, for the most part, means arrest. 39% of violent crimes that are reported that there's actually an arrest for. That number is too low. If we're serious about attacking and reducing violent crime, the best way to do that is to actually arrest the people
who commit violent crimes. As Mr. Hsu, the prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County, mentioned earlier, the number one deterrent is not the length of penalty, but rather the certainty of it. And this bill would work toward that. What this would do is enable the Department of Public safety to issue grants targeted locally to local police departments to reduce violent crime in that area. It's modeled after programs that have worked in other states like Oklahoma primarily, but also
Utah. A couple, well, first of all, before we forget, there is an amendment, and I'll move WE DO PASS ON THE AMENDMENT AND I APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE ON THAT. WE DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT. IF I MAY WHEN WE'RE PASSING THAT OUT,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:44:53
I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO SPEND A FEW HOURS ON QUESTIONING OF THIS BILL. SENATOR TUCKER, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? I'M AT YOUR SERVICE, SENATOR GILMORE.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:45:02
THANK YOU. WHILE THEY'RE PASSING IT, WHAT I'LL SAY
is what this amendment does is there's no, as of right now, there's no money associated with this bill. I'm trying to create an account in case money becomes available at another time. And what the amendment does is I've had several conversations with Colonel Hager, the secretary of the Department of Public Safety. He wanted to be sure justifiably and understandably that there was not an unfunded mandate with this bill. And what this language does for the most part um is just clarify that that the department doesn't have any obligations
under this section if it's created if the if the bill becomes law uh unless the grant fund actually receives money so that's what the amendment does i'll
move to pass on the amendment appreciate a good vote all right
we have a motion we have a motion to pass on the amendment to
adopt the amendment a second? Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:46:14
you're recognized to be able to. Thank you. And I was mostly finished. I'm trying
to be succinct. I've been accused of being long-winded at times. So this is just an effort to empower the Department of Public Safety to work with local law enforcement to reduce violent crime, increase arrest for violent crime, and it basically creates the fund that would provide those grants in case money becomes available at a future time. If we are actually serious about reducing violent crime in Arkansas, I believe this is very important. So I'd be happy to take any questions. All right.
I'll just say briefly that I want to thank Senator Gilmore for co-sponsoring this legislation and Representative Gassaway for serving as the House
sponsor of it. That could hurt you in the long run. Was there any opposition to this
bill? Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chair. And as I say, I met with Colonel Hager and folks from the Department of Public Safety, had several conversations with them. I don't want to put words in their mouth. They didn't take an official position, but Colonel Hager told me he's very supportive of the idea behind the bill
of increasing our percentage of our arrests for reports of violent crime. He would love for there to be funding, understands that right now there is no funding. Maybe there is funding at some point in the future. I would love for there to be funding. I'll put it that way. His concern was if there's not funding, that they don't have any obligation to do anything, so it's not an unfunded mandate. And with amended language, he's comfortable with it from that standpoint. but but no no opposition that I'm aware of okay any other committee members have
questions seeing none we have you close for you bill yes mr. chair I move do pass and appreciate a good vote all right we have a motion do pass in the second as
Speaker 416
2:48:14
amended yes sir any discussion all those in favor
Speaker 420
2:48:23
say aye all opposed bill passes in thank you mr. chair thank you members Mr. Letting,
Mr. Letting, if you would state your name and your position, your district,
you recognize Senate Bill 444. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is an amendment to this
Chair
Unverified
2:48:38
bill. All right. We have an amendment to this bill. I move to adopt the amendment. Let
us just get a copy of it first. Thank you.
Speaker 422
2:49:20
YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT, SENATOR LEADY? JUST
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
2:49:26
AFTER WE GOT THE ORIGINAL BILL DRAFTED, IT WAS DECIDED IT WASN'T QUITE CLEAR ENOUGH, SO THE AMENDMENT WAS JUST CLARIFYING THE ORIGINAL DRAFT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
Chair
Unverified
2:49:44
SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
2:49:47
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO PRESENT THE BILL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. Senate Bill 444 was intended to clarify Act 821 of 2019, a bill that all 35 senators voted
for, by the way. Act 821 was intended to, among other things, restore voting rights and provide a path to have parole discharged for Arkansans who were given life sentences as minors. Again, that bill passed unanimously. Since then, it's been decided that if we're doing that for Arkansans who were given life sentences as minors, the law should also apply to other minors who were given sentences for lesser crimes. sense logically that we would do this for arkansans who had committed lesser crimes but also just as a sense of fairness so that's all we're doing with senate bill 444 i appreciate the prosecutors
reviewing this bill they have no opposition to it and there's
Speaker 147
2:50:33
no known opposition all right uh senator ross
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:50:41
you have a question for clarification i've been going because i've been upstairs in transportation with of the constituents' issues. I remember the other bill. I remember the questions that we cover a lot of times in judiciary
about the sentence normally has been pled down. There's already been some compensation, some allowance, some gift. from at least the maximum. Can you explain the difference in what was passed on the other which was more severe in this?
Speaker 427
2:51:29
So I'm not entirely sure I understand the question.
And this is for people that have served at least five years of parole, right? Correct.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:51:44
Okay. Is there any amount of their sentence time? I mean, they've got to be under a particular maximum that they're in there for. What I'm getting at is the plea down. When people want to turn somebody out, normally a lot of them have a worse record than they've been charged with.
Okay. I'm trying to get some comfort level on here. Are we just going to give everybody a freebie? And do you have the crime?
Is this a particular class of crimes? I wouldn't consider it a freebie. I think, do you have anything you
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
2:52:38
can do to clarify on this? Okay. Mr. Chair, with your permission, Lori Compiris has some, can perhaps address Senator Rice's question.
Speaker 432
2:52:48
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Lori Compiris with the prosecutor coordinator's office.
Speaker 433
2:52:53
Senator Rice, I'll try to give you some clarification and maybe if they have other questions, I'll try to answer them if I can. I think what you're asking is how this will impact the overall sentence. And it really shouldn't. I think the plea bargaining will be the same and the sentence will be the same. It's just what this bill does is an extension of what happened under the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act.
And that is once that juvenile offender, this will apply to minors who've committed offenses and are charged with adults, but once that minor does reach parole, if it's a non-homicide offense, it will allow them to have the same benefit that those juveniles charged with homicide offenses currently have that you all passed under the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act. there are some guardrails and guidelines in there the prosecutor would have to consent to that
and that juvenile would have to have served at least five years of whatever their probation time is i mean their parole time is without any violations so it kind of is on the back end once they've hit parole so i don't think it would have a huge impact on what they are sentenced to on the front end or the plea bargain, if I understood
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:54:18
your question. Thank you. You've covered some of the stuff in there, and that's my point, is for a minor to be charged as an adult is a serious crime.
Yes. I can think of a young man, and I can't remember the exact age. He was on drugs. Kid never had a problem with anybody before. Knocked on the door, said, I want to use your phone. They let him come in. He stabbed the guy to death. And he's been in for at least five years, which can help some of them get harder than they were. This kid didn't have any history, but he's in there for a long time.
That's my concern, is are we backing up on some serious criminal that may have gone in as a minor? I don't believe
Speaker 433
2:55:14
so. And as Senator Letting knows, because he's worked with me on these issues for a long time, I push back really hard when I feel like juveniles are being treated not as seriously as they need to be. And as I've told him many times, I could give you a laundry list,
a long laundry list of horrible crimes that have been committed by juveniles. And so I'm very conscious and aware of what you're saying. So I always try to be very cautious about crimes that reduce the prosecutor's ability to have the appropriate tools and the appropriate cases to handle those juvenile offenders in a just manner. I think this will apply on the back end of the sentence, only on parole, and it won't impact how long they can be sentenced on the front end,
as far as I can tell from the bill.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:56:11
The only reason I was talking about the front end was the plea down. The
Speaker 433
2:56:17
plea, yes. And I think, too, the part with the consent in there about the prosecutor. I think that's why under the old, the other statute that we worked on together I was insistent that we put that language in there about the prosecutor consenting and no violations because I didn't want juveniles just easily getting paroled out that those juveniles charged as adult was very serious crimes.
I didn't want them just to be easily paroled out after like five years. Thank you. You've been helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 414
2:56:45
Thank you. All right. Any more questions from committee? Anyone in the audience
Sarah Moore
Unverified
2:56:48
wish to speak for against the bill? Senator Lating, you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank
Chair
Unverified
2:56:57
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I appreciate your time. I would just ask for a good vote. All right. We have a motion. Do pass. We have a second.
We have a second as amended. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Thank you, committee. All right, committee, that's it. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS – Wednesday, March 29, 2023
SB495 Gilmore TO CREATE THE PROTECT ARKANSAS ACT; TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING SENTENCING AND PAROLE; TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSES; AND TO CREATE THE LEGISLATIVE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION TASK FORCE.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB430 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CHALLENGES TO ELECTION RESULTS.
SB431 A. Clark AMENDING ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
SB435 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW A VOTER APPEARING IN PERSON TO REQUEST A PAPER BALLOT.
SB437 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; AND TOPROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP.
SB444 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF PAROLE FOR A PERSON WHO WAS A MINOR WHEN HE OR SHE COMMITTED AN OFFENSE.
SB405 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR.
SB455 G. TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS STATE COUNCIL FOR THE Stubblefield INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION.
SB469 C. Tucker TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME IN ARKANSAS; TO ESTABLISH THE VIOLENT CRIME CLEARANCE GRANT FUND; TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITH RESOURCES TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB390 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATED TO CHILD LABOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO CLARIFY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW RELATED TO CHILD LABOR RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 4 OF 1948.
HB1501 Gazaway TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING WHEN A PROSECUTION IS COMMENCED.
SB448 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SERIOUS HARM" UNDER THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013.
HB1560 Vaught TO CLARIFY THE LAW REGARDING REPORTS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT WITH ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO ARE EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER; TO PROHIBIT ANONYMOUS REPORTING OF CHILD MALTREATMENT; AND TO AMEND PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD MALTREATMENT.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 29, 2023 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Connor Thompson
Unverified
Speaker 16
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Speaker 47
Dubbs Byers
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 57
Speaker 61
Speaker 62
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 55
Speaker 82
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Nathan Smith
Unverified
David Ackeridge-Underquasset
Unverified
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 110
Speaker 69
Speaker 120
Speaker 127
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 106
Speaker 114
Speaker 142
Speaker 154
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 178
Speaker 183
Speaker 186
Osiris Bally
Unverified
Speaker 144
Kamara Seals
Unverified
Speaker 206
Jim Hudson
Unverified
Carl Watson
Unverified
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 218
Speaker 222
Speaker 116
Speaker 230
Speaker 232
Speaker 242
Speaker 243
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 247
Speaker 257
Speaker 260
Speaker 262
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Speaker 272
Speaker 282
Speaker 283
Speaker 274
Speaker 294
Speaker 295
Speaker 298
Speaker 300
Speaker 321
Speaker 246
Speaker 327
Speaker 330
Speaker 285
Speaker 332
Margaret Darter
Unverified
Speaker 342
Speaker 346
Speaker 348
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 37
Clint Lancaster
Unverified
Speaker 357
Speaker 359
Speaker 362
Speaker 284
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 176
Speaker 188
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 392
Speaker 396
Speaker 401
Speaker 402
Speaker 409
Speaker 411
Speaker 399
Speaker 412
Speaker 416
Speaker 420
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 422
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 147
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 427
Speaker 432
Speaker 433
Speaker 414