State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Senator keenest the interview seven you're recognized. Senator king of from district twenty eight. Hello you're recognized. This is a about Senate bill three forty nine I am not running this today I was informed that the county Clerk sin Association counties have some questions and basically I'm just give me a little background this will I guess is be reading lesson for the spring break it's about independent signatures we've had several bills passed that they have been ruled unconstitutional and we know state and federal courts for so long we have to pay the bill to that and it cost the taxpayers a lot when we pass unconstitutional bills and I just wanna let you know that we are now going to have to do something Senator Hammer has a I was informed has another bill that he's working with the secretary of state so hopefully We can all get together in the libertarians in the independent people and trying to come up with a bill that will not be ruled unconstitutional because like I said we passed we continually passed unconstitutional bills when it comes to independence and it cost the taxpayers a lot of money and the rally was the last federal judge ruled as unconstitutional basically wouldn't vacated decision and and so you know it's still being watched and I'm just saying I just want to present these court cases that show that the previous bills have been unconstitutional which were not the constitution so we need to provide by hopefully it we're going to come up with a solution it with the centre hammers Bill or my bill to first pass constitutional test because whatever we pass I can I would almost a hundred percent guarantee you it's going to challenge federal court on independent re signatures. That's all I just wanna make sure everybody knows that where I'm at on that bill thank you senator him we got all the information passed out all right thank you senator senator Hammer the senator penny has a bill that you're you're on also it's a concurrence in its Senate bill two seventy three. You some time to review it. If I call up Daniel come up your head thank you. Yeah concurrent. Thanks just amendment to the. Yeah. Kim Hammer station District sixteen. Therefore Election Commission wrecked. You care for deferred annual probing returning your. We put you in a bad spot no good thank you thank you committee so what this is the bill is one of our agency bills were read asked to clarify and and structure how run offs for vote Senator only counties work with the bill got on the house side they had that one of the prisoners that bill has clarified with an ambiguity that we encounter the last election for the U. could the prohibition about establishing public sites was applied to taking away and you are allowed to add or did it prohibit both ways and what are read was that you were allowed to add it was a probation about taking away would clarify that the original bill had said that that was unanimous vote at a polling site after the deadline after the election for the run off of the House change that from unanimous to majority so that's the only amendment in the bill. Three questions. This is the. Your. Okay the what's will of committee on concurrence. But my past was Senator Tucker second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign the thank you senator what to. What bill. Got to redo two seventy seven seventy seven. Two seventy seven and then heard once the. This is the second second time. Thank you Mr I'll go ahead and get started may wanna call somebody else up other than Daniel if you don't mind just to. catchers any other questions I can answer of Kim Hammer station District sixteen as somebody may be aware there was a lawsuit that was filed that involved the Libertarian Party of suing regarding a piece of previous legislation that was run as a result of that it made its way through court and that law was determined by the judge in its entirety even things that maybe we think should have been declared unconstitutional it but the result is the judge made the ruling is and we are where we are what this bill does is it creates a pathway for to address the issues that the judge identified in that and the bill includes the new filing period dates for recognized new party to file in this bill is extremely important each be passed so that the candidates have a defined legal filing period without this bill we can have a lection but we can't have any candidates and so we worked with libertarian party check every all the key players needed yes to where we are before you today that this bill would satisfy the findings of that lawsuit and will help us be able to move forward so we can get about being able to file for elections that are coming up and satisfy the court. So does the Libertarian Party of an honest factors here and sign up maybe some speak on it we can hear from him are you okay with the this bill. Okay. Okay it is it is a libertarian okay with this. You will full disclosure because only transparent because respect when I've had a really good working relationship through this as well as all the other parties this satisfies everything about the lawsuit what it doesn't have in it that they would like to have but it's not in this bill nor is it necessary to satisfy what the court determined as issues with the previous legislation is the three percent where they would have to continue to collect three percent that does not have that in here that would be ran as a separate bill but it is not necessary in order for us to get things right with the court. Okay because I just handed out the court case that I have another bill in in in lands with social County said you and I mean I whatever works out just needs to pass constitutional because if there's something that is deemed unconstitutional I can almost assure you somebody's going to re file another lawsuit not me I would be just disclose that it will be me but I would just say that in after spending years in court federal court that these these power up in on the taxpayer's when we pass unconstitutional bills so I just wanna make sure that any if Mr Paco's okay with this I think that's a good sign and so anyway just in in your other bills such as like keep updated because of you know like I said it just drives me crazy when we passed a clearly unconstitutional things and we have spent years in a court system and taxpayer money that we desperately need to spend other things anyway but glad Mr practice okay yes he he was in the weeds on this. Your questions. Your questions from members. You're in base and up to speak for against nobody what's the deal closely bill I'm close create a good vote what will of committee. Motion by Senator Tucker. Second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. Yes discussion. Thank you Mr chair this is one that I had walked into the last time and didn't get a vote on. I'm glad I walked in kind of late because it in particular care for the bill but so I'm just want to put that out there being no thanks thank you. We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye aye All opposed like sign. Thank you senator you best you will thank you Mr chairman members of the committee. The chair allow me to run any other Sir absolutely usually quote keep on rolling hi this clear this thing off yes I'd like to go back to signify the familiar. You under the rest of them on the calendar are the House Bills. It sure is I'll give you I'll give this college for a. Two seventy five. You're recognized thank you. All right so to seventy five there was an amendment that was engrossed into this bill I'd like to point it out to you and it is on page two. And and this is what's different from the last time I was in here it's on page two and look at line six. This was as a result of discussion that occurred on the floor I referred back to committee for the purpose of amendment all rent members on should be clear when it came in here and it's that frees up our for our attended by a person so what this bill does why we need this bills every major election the state were election received complaints from candidates that they're not allowed to be present at a pole or they argue that they have a constitutional right to campaign at whole requiring polls to allow unlimited electioneering could cause counties to lose sight this bill is designed to be a compromise that balances the interests of the candidates in the polling sites because of situations that occur it is a bill that tries to strike the balance between two sides so what the bill does it must allow outside the electioneering exclusion zone which is a hundred foot zone that is the sacred zone it must allow that as an election site that you would allow physical presence audible campaigning and a sign that can either be held or attended so that if you are standing there with a sign okay Beals illustration like down in sterling county we got a you know we got a lot of signs across from the across from the a vote here building okay in this case if this bill passes those signs would either be held in the hand you know which would be either you know look up of your typical hold up sign or let's say you had to go the bathroom we had to go eat lunch or whatever the person next Youth say all injured signed somebody has to be responsible for that signed during that time it may prohibit it would allow the polling site to prohibit the affixing of signs tension or other structures that would be the individual rights of the polling center so if you have a church for example that's a polling site and they say we don't want any signs at all. Okay that are a fixed or ten or any other structures that are left permanently then that polling site could preclude candidate's or you know things are on the constitution for example that are on the ballot they could prohibit individuals from placing signs but if they do for everyone I got it for all they allow for one side they got allow for all but they do have that right to prohibit the affixing of signs cancer or other structures and the burden is going to be on the the County Board of election commissioners to ensure sites sites will align with this bill and what it actually does is ensure equal access for all it would require the polling site that outside a hundred foot zone that they would have to allow people to be physically to be physically present if they want to be they could say Hey I want you to vote for senator so and so or they could say I want you to vote against issue whatever and they would be able to hold signs or be have signs that would be attended by somebody and then it would allow them also to prohibit any signage at all but they could prohibit that this is a strike a balance between the issues that the state more elections in the County Board have to deal with it comes as a proposal to you and I'll be glad to answer any questions or that party will mail okay some question. Thank you Mr chair senator you said you and grossed an amendment since the last time we heard this couple days ago I'm I'm I only see the amendment that was on there from three nine what when did you get something actually done between two days ago when voter this down today. I'm a I'm a misspoke I think this was in I forgot I was here. Couple of yeah you have to say and I think it had in there The Amendment than I'm referred to the only change from the read the only. Amendment from the original presentation this bill is on Page two line six which says are attended by a person so that it brought clarification as to somebody standing at a polling site that the you know or hold their hand or there attending it. Well while that sign is there that's the only thing that changed and I know you submitted suggestions some other submitted questions in here but running it like this but it hasn't changed since we voted voted on it two days ago no okay that you're correct in that I was trying to find it in here you can see and so the other question I have. Is this is the feedback I'm getting from from back home from polling sites that are churches primarily that if this passes they won't be a polling site anymore and so Just the the rights to the property owner that they're they're giving these I mean that the state they're not entering into a contract for payment or anything like that to use the premises for whatever purposes it's. They're allowing people to come on as a public service on to their property and they want to be able to maintain authority over the property and if they're not going to receive that continue to have that or they just won't be a polling site and so We're going to have probably a lot of places that can be used as polling sites especially during early voting large parking lots you know nothing going on during the week there during the day that that really works for the for them deciding that they're not going to be polling sites and there's at least a lease well several within my district that have already said they're not going to be a polling site if this passes so I mean I. I understand there's always going to be issues or problems there's always gonna be complaints no matter what we do one way or another but if we don't have a polling site I mean maybe the point complaints of the down on his many people voting early because we won't have as many locations but that's a significant concern and I don't know that. It's changed since Tuesday when we voted I voted against it so thank you can I respond. I think it is a matter of. Your perception it's a matter of principle I understand that as well but it's also a matter of democracy I pastor a church of pastored churches for. I've been a mystery forty four years have pastored churches forty one of those forty four years I do not have a problem with this bill is a pastor I'll just tell you right now I think part of democracy is that you have to make yourself available and sometimes democracy is not always a comfortable process sometimes is not always a comfortable experience but we as churches speaking on behalf of myself as a pastor I think need to be participants in that process if we expect to have a voice in that process and yes there is a little bit of discomfort in the idea that you may have a person standing outside a hundred foot zone in your church parking lot that is let's just say pro abortion when your church's position is pro life and that's where to quote the scripture iron sharpens iron. Me as a pastor I would not have a problem at all because I think it is us involved in the process and we can take a hands off approach and say no I don't want to be involved in that that's fine they're gonna be a polling site somewhere me personally I'd rather those people becoming on my church property I'd rather they be seeing that we as a church or good community players and that we want to reach out to people in the community that's that's what I would like to experience my church currently is not a polling site because it sits right next door to the community center that is the polling site but we and I'm speaking as a pastor we do not mind I do not mind as a pastor the way this bill is written because I think it strikes a balance that's necessary have church votes not to do it respect that a hundred percent but I think there churches out there also that are the same mindset as I have it we'll just figure out which ones are which. So senator if we do nothing this language does not give the opted. What is the it is there are uniform across the state way of handling the signs now are. Hello how will this be addressed I could I. Defer to Daniel thank you to be the better expert on that. The there's no law that addresses that specifically the practices that is centered Dotson mentioned some churches to have a blanket prohibition the activity there people of some members of this body who have lost constitutional argument to say that it can't do that but none of that's been litigated I'm not saying that's right wrong that again the the idea here is we've got the absolute prohibition is now practically allow. Which means they could tell you you can't be there to to campaign while voters are going in and out of whole. So without it being and statutes and up to the property. That's right. Three other questions. Senator flowers. So I thought we have in the law now that you cannot. Display campaign signs advocating for any position. Within one hundred feet of a polling. The entrance at the polling place. That's correct okay so that's the only restriction now in the law. Yes okay. And so it the law now. Does it give. The right to. The property owner. To allow or disallow. Outside of that hundred feet. That's correct okay. And I think we pass that. Maybe in the last session or so. Well there's no statutory law that governs that explicitly no the hundred feet of the hundred feet rule has been in effect for some time but it was amended in light of a federal constitutional opinion that clarified how it works so you did and you worked on it and the last session of the definition of electioneering but the prohibition of electioneering has been there for some time but in the last session. We pass. Law that said. No campaigning no signs within a hundred feet of the injury was that what that specified in the law of the land the the the law already prohibited it but that what you did last session clarified what the prohibition was more specifically because there was a federal constitutional opinion that Could arguably have our our statute with little more vague than it is now prior to the last session well how did we clarify you. Because I thought it was more I thought the language dealt with the hundred feet of the insurance. Senator. Senator flowers my recollection it was center hammers bill but but there was a bill last time it made it a misdemeanor to enter the hundred foot zone unless you were going inside the vote in that may be what you're thinking Maybe so. But I remember the discussion being that. There may be a business located within. Well without the hundred feet of a polling site. And so right to the extent that it would. Arguably. Encroach on somebody else some other property owners. Right to a peaceful possession of their their property. if you if even if it's a church and you across the street with the business is a business after allow these people with the signs and all the campaign stuff. they are not a part and have not agreed to be a polling place. So I mean is that you understand the scenario I'm drawn here. Mr shills. Yes. My. So two things one Senator Tucker is referring to a different bill than I was so that maybe some of that the that would recognize the clarification to be. What what limits your last Wednesday to be your last question first that the. this was only applied to the polling site so if it's some other and there's an AG opinion already on this is there some property other than the polling site that that this doesn't apply to them this is only the polling site that this applies to it's far as in again Senator Tucker was talking a bill that dealt with other conduct inside a hundred feet I was referring to a separate bill that that better difficult more specifically defined what electioneering was with the electioneering prohibitions were within a hundred feet those are two separate questions all of the language inside a hundred feet what we're trying to do is clarify what contact what conduct is permitted or required to be permitted outside a hundred feet because right now there's nothing that addresses what no statute addresses what's on the other side of that line what is required what is not required. So if a polling site. If the property owners is agreed to be a polling site. And their property. Ballinderry is just a hundred feet from the entrance. And say. There Adjacent to that. Is a public street. So people are gonna be allowed to stand in the street with signs and stuff. No ma'am the the the bill only deals at the polling site the and I don't I don't know of anyone who would interpret that to mean completely unrelated piece of property disconnected to it the the bill simply is trying to say I so for instance if you if he was only fifty for the property then this just has no application there is no land that would be governed by this bill. And so that they're they're probably won't be any election opportunities and that's not because of this law that's because of the current law that the exclusion extends beyond the property. But if the property owner that's agreed to be a polling site. Has acreage which it is certainly more than a hundred feet from the entrance of the polling site. And they run a business all part of that property. This bill allows. Campaign. Name with the signs and advocacy and audible disseminating. I believe disseminating information. Even on that polling sites adjacent business which is. All or part of their property. At the I think a she question say there's a church that has a. It's a great to be a polling. And they have a school. That is on the grounds as well. That's outside of the hundred feet from the entrance of the polling. Place. So we're going to allow. Signs and. Audible dissemination of information concerning politics. On the school campus it I'd. Is that I'm I don't think that would be a fair way to interpret the bill certainly not in its practical effects of in the you all run for office you're going to want to campaign in a place where you're going to be able to influence the voters I don't think that it's likely to be a concern that somebody would want to go to the far corner of L. beyond the scope of where the voting is taking place in campaign that I don't think that's a lot a likely outcome of this we're we're talking about beyond the scope of where the. Voting takes place outside of a hundred feet. But at the immediate the the the the the the electioneering that takes place in these are are a if there are if they're always at the hundred ones that line they would be as close as possible and I think that's I've never encountered a situation where there was campaigning going on but beyond that and that you know again the current law doesn't govern this so it's certainly possible if you know if you're electioneering that could happen today and it's not been a problem. Well I agree with you that that. If possible. And anything we put in law all. I thank Has the potential. Of anybody's imagination in trying to conform. With what they can do it within the law. And so what I can see a big problem within friends meant on property owners rights when they got business or some other activity going on on their property that's outside of the hundred feet of the entrance of a polling place. Just because your bill doesn't contemplate that that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Yes that are all I would say is that could happen today. The senator Payton. Thank you Mr chairman colleges for being late of. So all along with senator flowers is an Army what do we consider a polling site is it I mean the way I've always look at it the hundred foot barrier was basically in place because everything within that hundred feet was part of the polling site. But if you own a quarter mile of road frontage and you allow somebody allow the county to have a polling site. At one end of it. Should you not have the authority to determine what signs are going to be on the fence. Three hundred yards from the polling site. Yes center and and recall of the in part of the purpose of selling we wanted to balance both sides of the the one of the fundamental provisions of this bill is that you can exclude signage that The effects of the property so you could probably Arkansas a. There are no signs to be on the fence at all and that would be perfectly and I understand that but my question is. Five as a property owner allow the use of a portion of our property to be a polling site why does all the adjacent property become polling site. Because. obviously. If the polling site is going in the rules about the polling site is going to govern the entire piece of property I mean it could be an expensive piece of property well and I don't think there's anything that's requiring us to read site as parcel of those aren't exactly the same thing it cited as the day of the Loki I believe that going from memory I believe that's the location where voting is occurring so if you had a thousand acres and you. Loading going on in the building that's on the frontage road I don't think it would be reasonable reading of the current law or this law if they are this bill it was a law to say that the the entire parcel becomes part of the site and maybe reasonable people could agree on a thousand acres but where is the line. When you say a polling site how far beyond that hundred feet are we going to consider the polling site because I think the reason we have the prohibition within a hundred feet is because that's the polling site you don't allow lectionary inside you don't allow it within a hundred feet because that designates what is considered the safe space the polling site and everything outside that hundred feet this is property that people can campaign on. So I guess my question is do we define anything outside the hundred feet anywhere else in code. As being part of the polling site. At public side but again the definition polling site essentially the location where voting is occurring it doesn't it doesn't have a a new I'm numerical. But currently state code regulates. Out to a hundred feet from the entrance it there's a criminal bill would take that. State regulation beyond that hundred feet into territory that has never been control before. Mr chairman. Do you might give the response to this. So the hundred foot. Is the protected area around the polling site which is the actual physical location and we one hundred per we want a hundred foot zone so people can have that security in there what this bill does is outside the hundred foot zone if the polling site says we don't want any signage at all anywhere on our property they have the right to preclude anybody from putting signage at the hundred and one foot mark to the the end of the thousand acre mark wherever it is and they could they could stop that what the bill does allow is if somebody wants stand alongside the road and they want to hold up a sign and they want to say as you drive by or walk by a please vote for it allows that to happen you know somebody wants you on the backside of the thousand acre hole signed and yell a thousand feet away vote for me. More power to them. I would think there's a degree of common sense although not written in law that that is not going to be a practical application for to happen now maybe if that thousand foot is alongside the road and they want to stand there while people are driving to the polling site I could see where this law would not prohibit them from being able to do that I think that is a I mean you're a realistic potential that could happen But as far as what this bill does is it simply that. I think what we got to come down to is the determination that if we don't want anybody outside that if if we want to polling site to have the ability to say nobody outside a hundred foot can put up any signs they can't be electioneering they can't do anything period this bill is probably not the bill if that your position if that's what you want this bill is probably not the bill for that and then it's down to debate of whether we want that or not we draft another piece of language and we see which bill would get through to achieve that if that's the concern from my position would be that if we are going to say there is a certain distance beyond a hundred feet. That we want. Deregulate in our election law that we should define that. Rather than it. Continuing a quarter half mile or a mile down the road just because it's part of of the same contiguous property the polling site. Should have a limit of how much of that property it can regulate under election law I think a lot of people have assumed and I myself that the hundred feet. And within that hundred feet is what we have tried to cover with election law by the prohibition of electioneering in the inside a hundred feet. But if we're going to say okay we want a perimeter of a hundred feet and we want to allow people to election here there then we need to define that second border rather than it being open ended okay thank you. Thank you Mr chair. So we've heard a couple of concerns. One is about the property at. Of the of the whoever owns the property where the polling site is right. It are you is there any obligation under the law to be a a polling or voting center Mr Schultz no Senator this is is there any obligation under the law to be a polling centre. So the only the only people this applies to people who volunteer to have a vote Senator polling site on the property correct that's correct it were there is language in there that specifies the obligation rests the CVC to ensure the site is willing to comply with you just hit my next question so as to center Payton concerned whenever there's a polling site and County they're going to communicate with the County Board of election commissioners about the what what the polling site is correct. D. E. and that the only way the city will now it's the only way to do it so could they not communicate with the CBC about. When there establishing their polling site about the the areas that campaigning will be allowed an outside a hundred foot zone when it's established with the CDC. Okay but let's say they on a square mile of property when they apply to be a polling centre cannot say here's where the voting is going to take place here's a hundred foot zone and here's the permissible area of work campaigning could take place what I think of the I agree with that and that simply it says it must be allowed it doesn't say it must be allowed everywhere so that would be consistent with my vision of how this works yes and every but we recognize that every piece of property is going to be different right were of a voting site is so that we can bring in your judgment can we rely on the County Board of election commissioners to negotiate that with the property owners when they're volunteering to be a polling site. I think that that's a that's what would happen if you pass this bill and I also think is is amended to Senator flowers the euro you RO candidates your campaign where there's people to campaign to. Not an individual right so the bottom line is. Number one only volunteers are subject to this law and the number two they can negotiate the terms of it one a volunteer with the County Board of election commissioners set fair I think that's very nice Mr chairman Matt just respond in the form of not a question that may be present and and that has not been discussed up to this point so thank you for bringing that out and as long as it is clearly understood as long as it is clearly in law now that when the County Board of election commissioners when they negotiate without volunteer polling site that if the describe a certain portion of the property of which signage can be placed. Then where this law comes in it says a standard of fairness that within that area that you've negotiated if that is currently allowed in law if you allow for the for the program. I want to folks put up a sign you can't deny the anti folks and that's that's the thrust of the bill is in that area that is declared in worked out between the County Board of election and that volunteer site location you have to allow equal opportunity for both sides to be heard in that designated area to me with this bill saying aye I may not agree with what you're saying but I'm going to fight for your right to say it. Which is freedom that's basic democracy and and free speech right in my opinion yes Sir okay that might the only other question I had was no there's also been concerns raised about neighboring property owners but you just look at the first line of the bill says a polling site or vote Senator established under this section shall permit there's nothing in the bill about the neighboring property owner being obligated to permit anything correct correct. Thank you. Senator flowers. So are you saying that there exists now in the code. We're County Board of Election Commission. Can negotiate. The we're with whoever owns property where the. A polling site can can be located. And how much. Of their property. Can be utilized for that. What. I'm trying to understand is that in the statute now because there's mandatory language here. On line thirty six. It line thirty five talks about local insight. Been established under this section I have read the other parts of the section. That certainly. One thirty six shall permit that's mandatory so you saying there is something in the law now that allows each county you. Board of election commissioners to. Go she ate a certain heart of someone's property. Well I want my understanding and and without attended desire in response to was that the the CBC's negotiates with these land owners of the city says on the sites to utilize for the property I mean that is Senator Hester dry often they're not leases but also often they are lease so defining the scope of the lease is a common occurrence in any lease you know if if you when you rent a room rent a an apartment you don't read the whole building you just ran a segment of and that's to find so I think that's a reasonable understanding of the status quo but it's not a statute. So if it's not in statute. There's nothing that would. Prohibit one from interpreting this to mean the whole of the property where the pro the polling site is located. You understand what I'm saying. I don't think that this actually nailed down anything in terms of that area. That can be utilized beyond a hundred feet of the property owners. That's why I'll vote no for this. There any other questions. Reservation. This is so if we're if we're not defining a polling site in this bill. Is there a way that the agreement with the property owner. We would create a definition of the polling site so if you own the property and you agree and flagged off this certain area that I'm going to let the county use as an election saw. With that somehow excuse the rest your property from. Control I I if I believe it would in in I don't know if this is helpful to you but I'll just read it since I think this is what we're talking about the current legal definition of polling site the polling site means the location selected by the CDC we're voting or votes are cast yeah it that is not exactly the same thing as saying the parcel that the landowner who allows voting I think there's a section there and I think the distinction that's worked out in practice and practical agree do you think that this bill would apply to. Property within the boundaries of the polling site. That are outside the hundred foot mark. But your other property. I think that the polling site is is this correctly and reasonably understood to be the area and immediate proximity that that I realize that I think we're I don't think there's any more I can give you but I imagine in these be the area that is defined in the agreement. When the when the property owner says I'm what you have. occupy this piece of property for a certain period of time. I would like to see this bill defined the polling site outside the hundred foot part because I think that's what's lacking in code today and and then this bill as it were we're assuming that at some point beyond a hundred feet people should be allowed action election year and that's property owner should not have any preference in whose election hearing. But you know we need to define how far outside the hundreds the. But if in the form of a. For question but if. If it was clarified. I thank we decided gives the County Board of election commissioners the ability to negotiate with the polling site currently what's allowed within that but to tighten it up to bring satisfaction what I hear your concerns if we were to specify that the County Board of election in working with the polling site shall define the area outside of the hundred foot that shall be allowed and just make it blatantly clear with that address your concern it would and a lot of what Senator Tucker. Has said you know I agree with and we need to have a zone where free speech is. Electioneering her going to college you may disagree with their with their cause with they have a right to be there because it's a polling site and we need the voters to have information. But there has to be a second parameter mopping Mr chairman. We apologize of a work with the bill drafter if you had meets afternoon may bring amendment in here it we will not be accepted then I'll see I'll see you on that one after spring break ended after he has two more House bills do you want to run one Cozart. All right the that would be House Bill fourteen sixty seven. There was. Okay. That do a. The. Senator Hammer with the I'll do whatever you want well if you're there you want to do. The fourteen fifty seven and fifteen twelve. Of. What bill small. Which fourteen. Seven fifty twelve. If we could do for you fifteen twelve first all right thank you will our show fifteen twelve age active military members and participate in voting process the of the absentee ballot cleans it up a little bit the bill unified states for all types absentee ballots in there so she had to deadlines and basically to clean up bills what amounts to. Three questions. Two. For. There may get the bill now. Fifteen twelve fifteen twelve. Go ahead Senator flowers. So we've taken out. Thirty days before the election. The ballots are applied for and so whenever the ballots are five four they have to be back in within ten days after the election. By five o'clock is that correct that's correct senator that language creates three deadlines for your call the ballots your call the ballot by civilian applied for more than thirty days your call the ballot by civilian applied for the less than thirty days and the your call a ballot flights for by uniformed services voter I think that added complexity so so on the so the the there ten days after except for if you're a civilian who applies less than thirty days before the election then you have to have a back on election night and it's it's just the complexity that we don't believe it's serving a purpose and it'll simplify our instructions it'll simplify the process for the counties and and I don't know what it is to our but I'm not sure counties are aware that this distinction is employed by the law and a lot of cases. I'm not sure this section is being enforced in all cases we want uniform elections across state. Minton The absentee ballots of arms services personnel. On the second page lines six through ten. So. Who is this directed at. Page two line thirty five. Page. Two one five those are us American citizens who are abroad or outside the territorial limits the United States but who don't fall under the the section below it says there so you can see the difference together. Three other questions. No one signed up to speak for against this bill Your clothes your bill I'm close as he mentioned all on clothes Mr chairman Christian a good vote the motion by Senator Tucker. Second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye opposed election thank you senator K. two fourteen fifty seven. Right so this is a poll watcher bill of rights and one of the things we encountered last time around is there were some You could have different people educating people on what a poll watcher rights are and sometimes depend on who's doing that they could have won interpretation law so we could have a different one really create some confusion at the election poll as far as to say and what about what are the rights and so what this bill does is create under the authority of the state board of election commissioners a unified structured approach in order for poll watchers to be trained it would be housed. At the hello Daniel speak on that one if you don't mind. Of and for the record at I want to make clear this is not an agency bill but is a bill for which I've been convinced of its merits and and that we can and and are happy to do with the bill requires and essentially that would be to place a curriculum sensually of course with the test is the way we envision it on our website that any person wants to be who you are or other candidates or issue groups want to point as a poll worker watcher or parties would simply take the course so they know what their rights responsibilities are they get a some sort of certification the shows they complete the course and then they would be eligible to be a poll watcher again appointed by the right candidate a party or a issue group. What we're trying to do is just make sure that somebody is out there presenting as a poll watcher which I signs people and be poll watchers last time myself is that if they are out there being a poll watcher that they understand clearly what their rights are but also the responsibilities what they can what they can't do it sometimes it can create some controversy within the poll site where somebody thinks that they have the right to do something but they don't so we're trying to head that off and just bring some some real clear definitions as far as what they can or can't do. So thank you Mr fields since this is not an agency bill. Thanks for that at the usually a representative is the bill that the board has voted on I just wanna be clear that that's not the case here but we've been consulted entered are fine with. I can. Union does this. Is this consistent with practices. That are utilized today. The only thing different. Well that is certainly as it relates the agency the final different is the training component right now there's no requirement that the poll watchers have any sort of instruction and so that's different for sure the rest of it is I believe in most every case More or less. defining what is is this sense with the current practice. So on page two this lot start at one thirty four this observation area not fewer than three feet no more than six feet from the. Location in all these the location at which an elector announces the name and address to be issued a ballot I'm not understanding that so the current law would require a poll watcher to be hit have to be in a position to be able to hear what's that that's helpful watcher knows they can't sit at the table with the official so they have to hear the the name of the date of birth and the address stated allowed by the voter but it doesn't define precisely what the parameters of that are so essentially this bill saying putting in a more specific. Yeah framing of where the poll watchers can and should be. Three the sixty. I'm not I'm I'm trying to visualize. Three to six weeks I mean you if if they're going to the county courthouse. And they happen to go into the clerk's office. To get there. Ticket or whatever. Sign the sign a sheet or whatever to say I'm here to vote. I mean those are fairly small spaces. With you the Clerk would have to conduct the election such a way that poll watchers had immediate access to the check in process so they could hear everything that was said and in that have to account for some people. Speaking quietly which is not uncommon so I had three to six feet is about what I would expect as the case current state of affairs is but again this just gives a much more specific definition. I'm trying to understand is is going to cause any problems to specify. The footage as it is here. I mean I know some tight spaces where people vote. And is it gonna prevent. the purpose of what. If the spaces are tight the and even if this bill isn't an active the the county Clerk whoever's conducting that voting will be required to ensure the poll watchers are able to be close enough to hear the check in process so I don't know I'm not sure what that leaves is but that's the current state of affairs. I'm just concerned about the mandatory language shall be included in these type bills. It seems to me like there should be some opportunity for me in situations where it's impractical. To have a mandated To mandate some performance of behavior. Thank you senator the the only thing I can say is yeah these are the sorts of things that would be at the enforcement mechanism would be the civil process for the board so and if if everybody seven feet away and everyone is in the poll watchers and and everybody's agreed to that I don't think there's a worry about an enforcement problem we're not all going with a tape measure but it what it does is is more clearly established what isn't currently in the law is that. That the in a way that's I think more easily readily understood that publishers have to have immediate access to hear the check in process again I don't think we're going to go out and sanction people for being you know sixty five inches but it does more clearly establish what's required. You're one of the I'd to say that the. In Jefferson County we've had some very contentious issues. Between election commissioners. And does that come up. To what phones so I can see this being a big problem especially when using the term shale. And that seems. Their own line thirty five is used again on the line twelve on page two all these things shall include that's that's problematic to me and I can see a lot of problems a lot of disagreements close to blows coming. And that's happened. I don't understand if if you allow for variations but you have a law that says shale. That's a problem it's either mandatory or not well and and I would say center that that's the benefit of having a more clear rule if people have disagreements they don't they're not gonna disagree on where the poll watchers are allowed to be this will clarify that so in in many ways this may prevent disagreement. Which was part of the whole intent behind the bill it clearly defines the set of rules so that a misinterpretations would not occur or somebody would not be able to take advantage of somebody who would be clearly defined and it would be a controlled source to where the information that's being put out is consistent across all seventy five counties. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair I appreciate what you're trying to do I have a kind of a similar concern that set a Senator flowers was expressing on shall put it in a different part of the bill toward the end on page nine. You can kind of go down the page there's several instances of in sections four five. And six. But just to give you one example the first one is in section four. It says that this is all current law. The persons entitled under the law to vote early by personal appearance shall cast their votes on voting systems under the laws applicable to early voting. And the Clerk election official shall enter the name of each voter on a list at the time here she votes that's all current law and but it adds in the presence of an authorized poll watcher if any so it's it's mandating that every name that's entered by Clerk or election official has to be done in the presence of a poll watcher. And I really have to concerns about that one is. When I vote early. downtown in in Pulaski County there are a number of clerks entering names because that there's a lot of people there and so what if you will if you have one poll watcher there. The that effectively cuts down the number lines you have from three to one because the poll watchers going to have to go from line to line for the name to be entered in their presence every time someone is trying to vote early. And but then the the other concern is more kind of more broad I mean. You know poor people are different as they should be but if you have a poll watcher what if they go there on the phone for a minute and someone's entering a name well they just violated this section because or they have to go to the bathroom in a violated there's only one poll watcher there then all of a sudden you violated this section of code not just section for but all the way down to section five and six I just feel like there needs to be some allowance in there for reasonable accommodations if there's only one poll watcher there's more than one line you know. there there needs to be a combination fat or the if they have to what what if they just decide to play a game on the phone for a minute you know or whatever the case might be if it's not done in the presence also they broken the law so that's that's my concern Mr chairman let pull bill down because I know you got other members and I really don't want chapter members by sucking up all the time fifty point one so let me pull us down you can let your other members I'm all over try to get the amendment to seventy five I may not like it back in time but I will spend my time doing that and then we'll take this up okay thank you thank you. This is House Bill fourteen sixty seven. All. Hope you're recognized. Barr Hester. So members if any we have spent any time on claims over the law over the last few years we've been experiencing where somebody files an appeal but it's after the deadline. And and the the law requires us in the claims commission to take action on like if there's an appeal but it doesn't specify if there's an appeal after the deadline so they've been having to send these things in the claims could wind up getting over claims whole list of things that were filed after the appeals are filed after the deadline because they still have to do all these check all these boxes and this is just really clarifying that Hey if an appeal comes in late they have forty days if it's day fifty or a hundred and fifty that they don't have to still do all these things like it's just denied because it was too late and that's really is just a a clarification that you know probably should've been put the law a long time ago but or a lot of people have to a lot of admin work on something that just should we shouldn't have to do because I just missed the deadline. Your questions. Good Senator can work what was your push your buttons. Senator. Do they have the money to put is there going to be any changes that have the money. To be able to comply with this there anything they need to know that this makes our life easier. It's claims not ethics but yeah I'm sorry yeah. Your any other questions. I don't see anybody to speak for against the bill the is your your clothes okay go ahead. Just clarification is there any. Wait to get a continuance. Or an extended time for appeal under the law now do you know. Are you know I I do not know I mean used great on on the front page line twenty four decision they have forty days to. After the claims commission transmits a final order not makes it so we're kind of clarifying that because. They can vote on something and if you're not there you may not actually get the notification of it so in fairness to the the the claimant that we said once they transmitted the decision of theirs forty days. But I don't I don't know if there's an appeals process currently or not this doesn't deal with it. And then this only deal with the. Late filing of the notice of appeal not the. Motion requesting reconsideration. Right well I guess a motion saying reconsideration but basically being appeals well I don't know I just know they have forty days to say we disagree and I you know we had some that came not long ago that will occur over a year later somebody files an appeal or years later. But the the staff still has to do you know all these things are on page two. Even though it's clearly outside the bounds of the the time and we're just saying that if it's after a forty you today you know forty one or a four hundred. You do not have to do all the steps okay thank you. Three other questions. All right the you know close I'm close to hi motion by Senator flowers second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. The center can you want to run what what number. You're recognized thank you Mr chairman thank you means committee so I've been involved in party politics and so voting campaigns back when my code to be run for US Senate of since the early nineties and been county chairman of in a Republican leader in the house so I can remember when filing fees for state representative fifty dollars. Association when it went up to seven fifty that was like a big major step so filing fees for county officials is set by the local council parties or county committees are you know filing fees in the state of Arkansas is one of the highest in the nation. I mean if you look economically where we rank in especially to what how much parties have got to be charging now to run for office it's way out of bounds. So I remember a judge that took out appointed by the first bush first President Bush and that was considered by many in some of the constitutionalist judge and he was talking about free markets the set will businesses and individuals are necessarily free markets but the arbitrators to decide that or or the government and the judges decide what's free markets this is got out of bounds with political parties and like I said I think I have been involved in Republican Party politics of since the early nineties like I said I was a county election commissioner twenty four years ago as a county chairman twenty two or twenty two years ago so this is got where it's out of hand seventy five hundred dollars for state Senate is unreasonable and I think as legislature we should set an arbitrary amount we're parties can either do zero. Or up to five percent of federal offices our zero to three percent of state offices I mean if we want is for Republicans for example want to be free market people allow competition the first thing we should use for our race I mean when you're put seventy five hundred dollars out there to run for state Senate and I don't know what the state Rep the gem you might can remember what it was for you last hi three thousand I mean that's just on reasonable I mean to be out here in the state like we are today and I think that with the person or we need to do is set such a high bar to be able to personally do that I understand that you know some people say well if you can't spend so much you can't run for office but to the I just think that is just got and reasonable in this even goes back to two thousand. Twelve I think I was a Republican or when I was a Republican leader they decided Senator you over Baker and I had a back and forth in newspapers at that time about so brazen filing fees to exorbitant mount and so this goes back to a problem that I've had for a long time. Question center Payton. Thank you Mr chair so you mention free markets I mean is there anything that compel somebody to have to run as a party candidate I mean we have laws allows them to run independent they can choose their party if if one party sits there. following fees higher than the other party than the free market system not. Compel the candidate to go to the cheaper so cheaper route so I understand when you mention free markets how that ties into a cap on following fees my reference to free market was in that we're the arbitrators sometimes to decide what is fair and reasonable in that much like a judge is so we already have state law in and sets up the filing fees that's of the parties all these things are already in state law so the parties there's already precedent state law decide in that so much my reference to premarket was to say that in this case we are kind of the arbitrators of what should be a fair when I'm in also free market is I believe in competition and number one thing I believe in competition is it should be for political parties and races so I've always been that and so I just in my reference was just about we should be of I think even as Republicans we should be encouraging competition so that's where my references so how does a fee cap encourage competition. Well I think when you lower the price of things you have more competition I would certainly like the price of food lower down you know I just think that it would encourage more competition when you make it for average a regular people to be able to afford of in seventy five hundred dollars is way too much to be able to run for state Senate I mean I've done that a file that three times of so I just believe that in lowering the filing fees in but and we're on the high states in the nation well I just don't see where. I'm free competition to me is somebody in the competitive market. Lowering their fee to where they're below the competition and so therefore it's competitive if we say that a cap or a standard then all the fees end up being the same that doesn't appear to be competition to me well I think that in this case whenever you're looking at the the state government by state laws comply all the rules when we file how we file how that's done with the state party spleen everything that we do with the filing is within of which is set by state law I just think this adds to it we're you know I just think that we should make it where or you know it shouldn't cost so much to run for office I mean we should make this about wealthy people or people that have the money to run necessarily it should be that we should limit the filing fees and make it across the board so and when you say that even though this state makes a lot of laws concerning the political parties and ballot access and things like that the state has been extremely careful over the years to protect the citizens right to file as an independent and not of a one of the political parties well I would disagree with that that's why just past I don't know if you're here earlier we just passed out court cases where the state and we're passing laws to make it harder to file as an independent and they were ruled unconstitutional and we spent years and a lot of money to spend an unconstitutional laws so I would argue that no the state has not done that these are been proven in several court cases of ruling things unconstitutional well and I wouldn't disagree that sometimes we overstep our bounds because I believe this would be an overstepping our bounds when we tell the political parties what to charge us to carry their brand thank you well and this is also allows people to make government laws for everybody it's not like I go to drive. You Harrison and there's twelve banks and I can pick which banks I mean this all funnels down to the to the hundred and thirty five people for the legislature part were you two U. S. senators this is not in something that. You know five thousand people were going to be done and there's only a certain select few that do it and the the more expensive that we make it for people to try to run the office into that and it makes it fair across the board that the libertarians or the Democratic Party I cannot remember when the Republican Party used to complain of about the Democrat party's filing fees were so high and you know what they've done now they've turned around and in hypocrisy wise they're more expensive than the Democrats so I was down here when it was all Democrat or seventy five percent Democrats at least in the Republicans at that time were beaten up in the newspapers and everything else complaining that the Democrats beyond fees were too high and now they flipped it around where the now we're higher than the Democrats so this I was one of them complaining about that at that time so for me to not sit here and say and take this right now today would be hypocrisy from the days I remember when Democrats controlled things and try to make it you know harder for people to run for office by requiring more I criticize them why would I not stop whenever we're higher than that now. Senator Hester. So your Republican as I'm sure that you work through the Republican Party to try to get them to correct that did you did you present a resolution did you go to the rule changes did what did you do within your own party to try to correct what you think is wrong I started out a long time ago whenever I was involved in a much before anybody in here was ever involved and so I didn't do anything recently here but I can tell you in two thousand twelve that Senator Gilbert Baker and I went round and round about this and even in the newspapers about like we were raised in the filing fee so high so I have been complaining about this I complained about it when Democrats are doing it now sorry complain when Republicans it so this goes back. I don't know which one I don't know if Michael did the article back then but I was quoted in that paper criticizing that when Republicans talked about how that Democrats were in and now they got in there and went worse than that as the market proxy. Your other questions. C. nine no one signed up to speak for against your clothes your bill yeah close I'll just make a motion to pass him a roll call this. Motion sir second most senator Tucker all in favor say aye hi All opposed Like sign. The nose I have it I'll just roll call is repealed. Senator flowers Senator flowers yes Senator Hester no Senator Hester now senator king by Senator king I senator Crowe. Senator Kroll now senator Payton. Senator Payton now senator Dotson. Senator Dotson yes Senator Tucker Senator Tucker yes. Sorry I get that on record for you days three days does not pass we are adjourned.