State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

We will come to order the. I have an easy one. Senator Tucker if you'll take the chair yes I have an amendment. If. Senator Johnson you're recognized to present your amendment thank you chairman this amendment is simply a messed up a code section whenever the route to regional bill by one number so that's the amendment. Any questions. What's will committee. Motions are second second. Close for the amendment all in favor. Any opposed graduations Senator Johnson you passed your amendment. You may go ahead please recognize present the bill as amended the this is a a question is shares the association the. Criminal detention facility review committee to be transferred over to the Public safety rather than corrections and it's went to the governor's office and it's all agreed and agreed upon so. Any questions. Senator flowers. So. I guess with the endorsement of the sure. Issued shares and the governors I had to make make sure that the governor's staff was good with the transfer. Transferring it from the department of corrections yes ma'am to the to the public safety. So I take it it would make more sense to. Have the department of public safety review that's what detention facility that's why I wanted to make sure they were good with that transfer I think as we're we're is regionally hal's before transformation okay. So and and this review We call it a. Review facilities review. Office. Ordinator. They would look at what. Is required. To comply with regulations list several mostly what I would think federal state for their for their local holding facilities County. And all the tension the that would include the prisons to wouldn't it I am I assume so but more the more is done on a local level with the county facilities I think in the state I have no idea on that so there you those so so that a facility this review committee goes in and specs and make sure everything is in compliance with regulations. Okay I would like to hear from the. Sheriffs association. As well thank you I saw sure Bradley in here I'm not a minute ago but. Hi Larry share would you would you come. Servers would you repeat your question. I want to just know when get your comments why this is better to change it. From the department of corrections over to public safety yes sounds like it makes sense to me but we tell me more well I mean the reason I think the shared we during the transformation we were put under eighty C. and there's just so there would you please identify I'm sorry I'm Scott Bradley in the Director of the Arkansas sheriff's association thank. Just makes more sense for us to be under the the parchment of what is it I went blank public safety makes more sense for us to be in other than a DC although both incarcerate people there in the punishment business we're holding facility so there are some big differences in this year's felt like it's just a better place for us to be. And and it was like that before transfer make formation it was it was very similar very similar we're we're under the state and they came in and in inspected our jails and they had Mr sterling panics is the one who who works for that who is the agency that come in and and works means in and inspect the jails make sure everything's up to par we're doing we're supposed to be doing and does a fantastic job really has nothing do Mr annex of this has to do with being under the public safety is and instead of a B. C. but prior to transformation it was under department of public safety no more I don't I don't think it was I think we were under and I it's hard for me to explain it but they would. they would go into each community and pick people from the community to come in with sterling appendix and do the inspections and make recommendations to the share on the detention facilities are and it worked okay I thank but I think the governor's office wanted this to be under and one of the agencies so they move this under a DC we didn't get much input in that situation so now we're here asking to be placed on the public side and you think the department of public safety is equipped to make those inspections and deal with all the compliance issues yes ma'am I met with the the the new staff and they are up to the par we gave them all the information on the process in the employees that and all that it entails and the feel very confident they'll do a good job I don't think much is going to change in staffing or anything I think it's gonna be the same thing would just be under different agency Gail. Well to me you know a lot of times it's all about how. anything is executed administered. And I know down in Jefferson County we've had great issues with our facilities distension facilities that. I don't know yes have been resolved I do think that we do need appropriate review and inspections and to make sure that the laws and the rules and rags are compliant with yes ma'am whether it be for medicine provided to inmates or the conditions of the facilities themselves Dismang molded all kinds of things that can affect an inmate. So I support your bill thank you ma'am and and we agree there thing you just said I think it's we're going to continue to keep the standard size that's our go. Any other questions. Anybody in in the audience wish to speak for against the bill. Say no your clothes for your bill senator close from bill and I'm not like a motion do pass as amended. Sekhemre Senator flowers on favor any opposed resolution center you pastor bill as amended. Senator Patty the Senate bill two seventy three. Introduce yourself and you're recognized thank you Mr chair jim Petty state senator district twenty nine I will be brief you're like most committees you have all large agenda this is one that we discussed a couple weeks ago I believe now we pulled it down because there were some questions and and I think the the the primary one was regarding the number of counties without a vote center and we've we've addressed that with senator king there's fifteen of those such counties and there was a question regarding the close proximity to the county line one of which that would be in the district that is in a row for in a a situation like that and then that one that was not and it deals with the placement of those and so I think we've answered all the questions I will pause. If so and see if there's any more. Jury questions from committee. C. nine Your clothes your bill. We have of one to speak for the bill. Rebecca Zimmerman. Okay. You can stay there Senator. Just introduce yourself and tell us who you're with us and you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman bers of the committee I'm Rebecca Zimmerman with Arkansas advocates for children and families families are busy from going to work school drop offs basketball practices doctors visits and more it can be difficult to fit everything in the hours of the day we support S. B. two seventy three because we believe or make it easier for busy families to vote with making voting centers more accessible and convenient for them at so we ask that you please vote in favor of SB two seventy three thank you. Three questions from the committee. Ziman saying nine thank you for your testimony. Senator you will close your bill I am close for my bill thank you thank you is there a motion. The motion. Is amended second by Senator flowers. Yes. The. But it was from what they was omitted from the previously today. There is amended in here. On the twenty first. The distant. It's not engrossed as. Motion the second as amended and all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator. Petty. Is there anyone in here to run Senate bill two seventy five. Anyone to seventy seven. Two eighty. House bill thirteen oh seven. Fortino to. Two ninety two Senate bill two ninety two. Senate bill two ninety three. The house bill thirteen twenty. Thank you Mr chair and committee representative ray is here to a president this bill and I thinking to a better job in Arkansas let him talk. Okay good morning committee house bill thirteen twenty this legislation simply moves the ballot title review process from the state board of election commissioners back to the office of the Attorney General the ballot title this is the ballot title review process for initiatives This the ballot title review In the attorney general's office was set up in nineteen forty three by the legislature and it stayed there until two thousand nineteen when it was moved to state board of election commissioners I think everyone remembers last year the state board of election commissioners declined to certify the ballot title on the recreational marijuana Amendment and that resulted in litigation that went up to the Supreme Court and in that decision in the Armstrong case the Supreme Court struck down this ballot title review process that was passed in twenty nineteen so today in Arkansas there is no state entity that has the ability to review ballot titles to ensure their legal sufficiency. And so this bill would just. It back in place the process that existed from nineteen forty three up until two thousand nineteen I'd be happy to answer any questions. Go ahead senator flowers. So what was the court's rationale for striking it down. Yes thank you for the question so the court said in the Armstrong case that amendment amendment seven to the constitution has a very specified role for the state board of election commissioners and it is not to Sir it is it is not to review ballot titles. So either we would have had to change the law to give the state board of elections authority to review. Are put it somewhere. Well that would what we can given authority given authority somewhere. Right yeah what the court said was that the state board of election commissioners the legislature can't give them the authority to review ballot titles because they already have a role in the process If if I'm if if I'm not explaining that well I can bring up Mr Ousley from the attorney general's office to better explain it. If you'd like. Some of the answers I've gotten from the Attorney General's office I don't know but yeah I'd like to hear from. Introduce yourself and you're welcome to help but help answer the question thank you Mr chair members of the committee right now the deputy Attorney General in the opinions Division of the AG's office Senator flowers your question was whether the legislature could give the state board with stable election commissioners the authority with the Supreme Court said last year is that under Amendment seven the state board of election commissioners shall certify the ballot title and what the legislation that was struck down last year said it's the state board of election commissioners may certify the ballot title so the Supreme Court said that the legislation that was struck down last year violated amendment seven because it gave the state board of election commissioners discretion about whether to certify the ballot title or as under Amendment seven the there was no discussion so far essentially with the Supreme Court said in that case as well as in nineteen fifty six case is the role of the state board of election commissioners is essentially to certify the authenticity of the ballot title to the locals the local election commissions can I know what to put on their local ballots but as representative ray was saying earlier as we sit here today there is no state entity. short of the Supreme Court that reviews the legal sufficiency of the authenticity but the legal sufficiency of the ballot titles. So it wasn't just that it sounds like the language was an ambiguous. That we created. With the may. We did we didn't give them full authority saying it was discretionary. What the legislation did last and that was struck down last year to twenty nineteen legislation that essentially took the entirety of the AG's process which had been approved by the Supreme Court in nineteen fifty six and it moved that review review process to the state board and what the Supreme Court said is since the constitution says the state board shall certify state board just doesn't have discretion about whether to certify so there was a conflict between the authority granted by the statute and the the limitation said amendment seven. That helps. But the legislature could put it anywhere we wanted to. You times of. Approving the ballot title the only process it's been approved by the Supreme Court is the process with the Attorney General putting it with a different state agency would be a a new question question first impression if that were to come before the Supreme Court yeah but you're back in that up to the nineteen fifty six decision. Second you backing that up you with the nineteen fifty six decision correct okay so it still seems like it's up to the legislature to decide if we wanted to we could demand a mandate any agency I don't necessarily have a problem with with the bill So before. Twenty twenty one years I. The Supreme Court when we change the some twenty nineteen twenty nineteen. And before that it was with the AG's office that's correct okay. All right. Thank you thank you Mr. Really questions Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair. I understand what you're doing and I think it should be with the attorney general's office I just have a couple questions to make sure I understand what's done and maybe a suggestion if you're open to it but. On page two. I believe I know the answer this question I just want to want to hear your conferment and subsection the starting on line ten. The Attorney General can. Essentially re write a ballot title under this provision correct. So my understanding is they have three options they can certify and approved the language's been submitted they can substitute a re write a more suitable title right then the sponsor then has the option to accept that order or not or if they find it to be legally insufficient they can decline to certify that state the reasons for doing so and instruct the sponsor to alter their proposal so when you say the sponsor I'm I understand that I'm focused on that second option where the Attorney General substitutes language. As you said that the sponsor could accept that or not where is that in the bill. Hey mark my reading of it and I'm I'm I'm asking generally please tell me if I'm missing something my reading of it is that under subsection F.. Basically the sponsor just apply to the supreme court for relief they don't like the substituted version there's no provision in the bill for the sponsor to accept or decline. If I may so please the language in the and and this bill is identical to the earlier language other view there's no change in this bill with one exception which I can mention and second so that the sections that you're identifying have sort of a custom built up over the years and I know from personal experience and having an in writing ballot title certifications under to turn general that what will happen in this situation where it comes to the point where the Attorney General feels that he or she understands the intent behind the the measure enough to be able to substitute and certify if the sponsor except that that substitution and what the sponsor does by another statute is goes and delivers that to the Secretary of State and then they go off on their signatures and that's now they're ballot title if they they don't accept that then at two options the one is to resubmit and that's happened before and the other option is to it you say under subsection at two. Okay so they resubmit is that under another code section different than this one no then then they just come directly back and so what you end up having is one one ballot title it's been certified by the AG and they come back and they have another ballot titles been certified by the AG and that's the one that they take to the Secretary of State's office under two seven and then it becomes part of their petition parts and then okay if they if they bring it back in the eighty certifies that the second time just as a hypothetical then they take the second certificate certified ballot title to the Secretary state correct Mr president okay but that's permissible under this language saying and this. That middle option of substituting language that existed in the law before two thousand nineteen before change by the legislature that that's correct that was not no that was in the law since nineteen forty three three okay thank you that's helpful so then my next question is. I just couldn't help but notice is that subsection F. is that also language that was there before. Yes because there's just a difference here and subsection affects as the sponsors may by petition apply to the Supreme Court for proper relief. But then if you look over a page for. On line nineteen. It says there the Supreme Court shall act expeditiously to review and I just wonder whether we should put that language in subsection as going. Please yes so what you're what you're identifying their own on page four line nineteen from cordial Act expeditiously review to the to review the sufficiency of the signatures and ask your question to be shouldn't that also applies to an expeditious review of the ballot title challenge yes Sir okay so I think The the process as it's gone before when people challenge a ballot title almost always challenge the ballot title and the sufficiency of the signatures at the same time and it will typically occur after the sponsors have submitted their signatures and you've got about thirty to forty five day window within the secretariat within which a secretary of state certifies we're not or doesn't sufficiency of the signatures so people who are waiting to challenge a measure will usually wait they don't want to spend money until they find out whether that there's a chance they're going to be on the ballot so when the cases go up they almost always go up jointly in the and the custom is they have account typically count one goes the ballot title and the other counts go to the sufficiency of the signatures the practice before the Supreme Court is a day bifurcate those counts and they have one track a ballot title one track person sufficient to signatures with a special master appointed so everything goes the same speed but there bifurcated because they're different standards. So I understand what you're saying from a practical standpoint. But while we're putting this back in the code and and and understand which and I think you're doing the right thing but so what we're putting this back into the coast we kind of have an opportunity to make a tweak here there where it's appropriate. So practically they may go the same speed most almost always a hearing or saying the bill would be appropriate to go ahead and put this expeditious language on the ballot title side as well just to make sure that if on the off chance we have a a petition that's ballot title only and does not include signatures that there's an axe expeditious review by the Supreme Court. I think as a as a legal matter of the Supreme Court is going to take whatever time it takes in the the Supreme Court on Amendment eighty is going to say we get to set that we get to set the time frames right and we can have legislation that tells us to be expeditious but under that original jurisdiction under minute seven and Amendment eighty and they have a rule that governs these original actions that sets our member correctly that sets an expedited time frame under their own rule so the question for the for the sponsor I think what whether that's a good idea but there's already a process for that under their own procedures. Okay. I'm all ears members questions. And what you're saying makes sense in terms separation of powers and in the time they have for. So my last question is is on page five these last two sections are these. Are these places where you're making tweaks to where the law was performance based on the fact that the recognition that. The petition is approved and may in fact be different than the original draft that was filed. Okay. Are you asking about line line eleven and seventeen both. Okay so on line eleven that is the one change I believe that's different from the previous right Law and that was that was inserted in order to clarify because yes I think that in the past some sponsors had to resubmit are or were re submitting right the approved proposal just to ensure that that was actually the correct one beacon being certified right so that's that language is what made me wonder whether that substitution option was available before but I understand what you're saying now so okay I appreciate appreciate us thank you. Really questions remembers. The we have one who would like to speak for this bill and the misty Orvin. Introduce yourself when you're recognized all right Hey ask that misty or fan I'm the executive director of common ground Arkansas in thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today about this and common ground is for this piece of legislation as you guys know if you estimate listen to me talk before about how we support the constitution of Arkansas clearly the previous way was not constitutional and this is gonna help approved by the Supreme Court is being constitution before so far as part of this we don't think it's any undue burdens on the people of Arkansas an initiative process so I appreciate a good vote on that thank you thank you ma'am there any questions. C. nine. Your clothes your bill. Were closed thank you appreciate a good vote number do pass motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Hester. All in favor say aye aye All opposed Like sign thank you senator thank you representative. We will go back to six Senate bill two seventy five. We had the Passover because. Everyone here senator Hammer one here. Introduce yourself and you're recognized. Both of you issue self. Thank you Mr Kim Hammer station District sixteen. The initial structure for the state board of election commissioners. Thank you thank you Mr chairman of get to the point respecting your time in the past election cycle we had a situation or to where there were some polling sites where the location the polling site or the entities to control the property of the polling site were allowing a certain signage certain things inside the hundred foot rule but they were you know they were we're we're not allowing others to put it and I'll just toss out a topic like marijuana so might have said within a hundred foot rule no no marijuana but they weren't allowing the other side maybe which for to put their signs in there so the intent of this bill is that we're going to clarify you know just what is expected and what is allowed within a hundred foot the bill requires a property issues for polling sites grant equal access to signage tension structures affixed to the property at the polling location all candidates issues without regard to the message and the property owner rights if allowed for one site must allow for all or alternatively if man for one must be banned for all and so that's the nuts and bolts of the of the bill and I did take in consideration Senator Clark had made a comment to me privately about the top of page two and if I could of this read at a certain bottom page one polling site or vote Senator Standridge this section shall permit any person who's outside the building in which voting is taking place and who is one hundred feet or more from the primary cure insurance used by voters to enter the building to I did take your thoughts and consideration and visited with a few people we felt it was saying the same thing maybe just saying that you know two different ways and so I chose to leave it the way it was but I did bounce it off some people that I consulted with on on this bill and bill it was pretty clear the way it was Mister chairman I'll be glad to take any questions. Answer can ask of Danielle you want. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr and thank you senator Hammer just just for the benefit of the group. What I mentioned a Senator Hammer is an I totally agree with what you're trying to do here. But when I read the bill. The way I read it. The first time I read it maybe I'm just. You know I'm I'm one of the thousands. read it this way the way I read it is that. A polling site shall permit any person who is outside the building in which voting is taking place and is a hundred feet or more from the primary stair exterior to enter the building to audibly disseminated information. there's that phrase there. To enter the building and it's unclear to me whether that applies to. The people who are more than a hundred feet away. Four to the entrance used by voters it's it's ambiguous to me. Okay a man respond please okay so I think that concern would be addressed by the fact that the phrase online to buy voters identifies it's the voter's we're talking about here it's not the church member who may be coming to the church to go and help with the food pantry thing else and and because we specifically said by voters I think that identifies the population that we're talking about in the bill. Daniel did you have some you want to add. Well now I do So that languages is lifted from the electricity and the reverse of the electioneering prohibition and the way the the hundred foot is measured in the electioneering prohibition language is one hundred foot from the primary exterior entrance used by voters to enter the building that that's one thanks so I think read in context of the code as a whole that that's how you identify the door from which you measure and that is correct it's clearly understood the electioneering okay commission okay my my suggestion was that it should say. A hundred feet or more from the primary exterior entrance that voters used to enter the building. Aye there's there's no ambiguity there in my judgment. But that. Maybe that's just me. Questions. Senator Biden. Thank you Mr Senator Tucker one just you I read that line twenty times and and still I can read it and more one one way or the other way I would think they would have to be someone to make it more clear but obviously I think we all support. The goal here. But. People who. May look for excuse. To not adhere to the intent of this bill might could use that language the claim confusion or something like that so I don't I'm not the bill drafter I but it it definitely seems to be. Hard to understand unless you use really study it is R. one point I was thinking that should say who is at least one hundred feet or more which is kind of like double because you're saying or more that I thought as you put in at least in there you might clarifies on the but anyway thank you thank you Mr. Mr chairman I respond by saying this and if Daniel would like to weigh in on it. I'm a I'm a go back to it Daniel said a minute go in he correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem like this is the language that identifies with the rest of the way it's written so if we if we changed it here then we might look at him to change it elsewhere but if we model this after everything else it is said everywhere else it seems like it's consistent with that but I will I'd like to give maybe Daniel chance to either affirm or. Correct me if I stated something wrong he's more of an expert at the name. I would like to I don't have any correction said okay. Go ahead senator flowers so. This. Amending the seven five one oh four and obviously there's something prior to subsections yes. If you read what is in the law. Fire to. What is being amended here F. one. Would. Clarity. Come. I understand what I'm saying would be more clear. If you read the whole. The whole thing. In its entirety. Is that we are leading to Senator yes okay if if there if we were looking at that whole section of the code. We understand what this meant. As you intended to be I think I would do modified for today I will get. Thank you senator I'm not sure this section would help you and what I was that just looked up to confirm that what I said was accurate for comedy further along that line that that the language that that's included here is the same that that being. Within one hundred feet of the primary exterior entrance used by voters to a building which voting is taking place. is it the used by voters is is what is used in seven one one of three which is the criminal prohibition against electioneering inside the one hundred foot and and that was why it was written was written out I think that provide some clarity. Yes ma'am seven one one of three. Okay your questions. Senator Tucker thank Mr some I'm looking it up right now some five one of three is repealed. and at seven one one eight three seven one one three okay it's the misdemeanor criminal provisions okay but I don't. I don't I did look up. For. Seven five one one. And I don't see any other place in there that this language is used but it's just an seven one one oh three. Seventy second annual that yes senator that's the it's in its the skews me it's. Within a hundred foot. He once more what's on within a hundred foot is it prohibit you from electioneering in. Okay so I've got that pulled up now. It says within one hundred feet of the primary extended exterior insurance used by voters. Which is really the language I'm asking for I think this language is inconsistent with the language and in seven one one of three. So what do Mr chairman instead of taking up valuable time I don't think it's going to be a. I don't think I'd be a huge lift I can I can pull it down we passed IT got my promise that will amended on the house in that we want to come back up you know let's get let's get issues with other components the bill I'm pull it down okay The Amendment sent over we can amended in committee or I'll do that may be the quickest way to do it may be on call but rather I take what I can only pull it down and get that tweak made or if you vote out I'll make you mine I'm percent commitment amended on the house side twenty comes back through here you can move through more expeditiously And Senator Tucker I'm. Well it's your decision Senator I just think my my request really I think this language that's and seven one one oh three would clear up my the source of my confusion at least I can't speak for Senator Payton but what the it says within one hundred feet of the primary exterior entrance used by voters to a building in which voting is taking place. So there's not multiple. Infinitives there the way there is in this language when I read this the first time I thought I know for certain Senator Hammer is not trying to make it where the folks outside in campaigns I know that's not what's happening sought to be amended understand what you're getting at so anyway but I think this other language would would clarify they will do Mr let me pull it down I'm gonna get to a good bill drafter work up that amendment but I'll bring it back to committee we can adopt any committee and then being gross fortieth floor because we're not talking about a heavy lift it up okay sounds good I'll make a motion sensor okay thank you to any other. I just are we talking about striking the four words to say to enter the building. I don't think we're talking about striking as much as we are about maybe tweaking a little bit to give a little clearer kind of to your point you're talking about a while ago okay and I and all evening when I get it done I'll show it to you all on the floor so we can have that before we get in here to make sure we don't slow down any okay thank you. Okay. All right thank you thank you senator Hammer the if you want to stay up there for Senate bill two seventy seven thank you. Yes. Yes Sir thank you. Which is state. Russians Kim Hammer say centre District sixteen speaking on Senate bill two seventy seven. You're recognized thank you. Long story short there was a lawsuit this is what helps us get past that lawsuit the reality is if we don't pass this piece of legislation Democrats Republicans or libertarians anybody else cannot file so this is in response to a lawsuit and when the judge ruled on it the judge threw out everything and so this bill has been designed in order to satisfy what was the determination of that lawsuit it gives third parties a set start time is set in time this tied into the primary a preferential primary and as you may be aware federal court declared finally periods unconstitutional so this bill is necessary to re establish filing period for the candidates you'll notice that in a couple areas that there's a tweak like from the first day to the second day the marchers because there had to be some movement and so we just moved it as close as we could without moving it further away from where it was I worked with Mr Paco in order to get this done leave it up to him whether come speak for against the bill with the Libertarian Party and Mister chairman that is the nuts and bolts of the bill and I'll be glad to take any questions. Question by Senator Hester. You need you know which judge which court. I had that ruling. Number. Baker. Judge Baker thank you. Good Senator flowers. Then read the case of tell me about. You will get you was introduce yourself. Initial stricter state Election Commission this is the sectors litigation secretary of state was in however my understanding is that the Libertarian Party of Arkansas brought litigation comple the complaint essentially asking court to strike down the mechanism by which third parties file that they're not a party and that this was an outflow that litigation. What was the complaint I mean what what when they sang in. Mr she to me can I have secretary state come up I think they would press for for that answer the question if that's okay with our. And I'd also like to know. Well the change. One week prior to the first day in March. The number. There twice. Me help me understand understand. Why you strike. One thirty three on the first on the first page. At second first. The second. Yes ma'am if it's okay legal counsel literature just introduce yourself and then you're recognized Josh bridges selection systems analyst for the secretary of state not the legal counsel for the Secretary but I did I did read the ruling on this and like Senator Hammer said the. On the ruling the entire section C. one. was struck completely in the ruling by judge Baker which rendered the entire normal candidate filing period that we all know one loves unconstitutional so the in order to re implement the candidate filing period without making drastic changes to the timeline the first day in March was changed to the second day in March because we couldn't necessarily just put or keep the candidate filing period exactly the same sense judge Baker ruled the entire thing unconstitutional so we simply just put from the first to the second day in March so there's nothing special about the second day in March necessarily but that's kind of the agreement come to. What was the Libertarian Party say aye what what was a complaint about the the original litigation was concerning the the process for the libertarians to gain political party access on the ballot the legislature I'm not sure which session it was but the legislature very recently change the signature requirement from the minimum of ten thousand signatures statewide for party ballot access to three percent of the governor's race which increase the overall number of signatures for this past election cycle to over twenty six thousand signatures minimum so there was quite a big jump from a flat ten thousand signature requirement to twenty six thousand and some change so that was part of the the lawsuits and that was declared unconstitutional there's also another portion I believe in daca Paco with the Libertarian Party may be able to speak on this since he was named in the suit as well but there's another portion of the lawsuit. The firm member correctly that had to do with Winslet Ariens had to file for candidacy. and I believe that the intent of judge Baker was in striking the candidate filing period I believe her intent was with the libertarians don't have to file during this time they can follow at a later date which I believe is names is discussed in the bill in another section so not to. Talk ill of any kind of a sitting judge but I think it might have been an inadvertent strike of the entire candidate filing period as opposed to simply stating that the libertarians didn't have to file during that time. How was it addressed by way of this bill I believe last page of the bill. Section six the line two and three a candidate to be nominated by convention will file with our office no later than twelve o'clock noon on the date of the preference primary election as opposed to them filing during the normal candidate filing period held prior to. So the old any a new political party such as libertarians greens whoever Gaines party ballot access they will follow at a later time twelve o'clock noon on the date of the primary. Because the they don't participate generally in a press. That's correct senator yes and then you put in ten thousand. Of signatures back in the took three percent out. Yes ma'am we do okay. Thank you. So senator Hammer. This puts our fiscal session and made in. If we go through this in your sign up is in November. Really had to talk about that is really just trying to satisfy the. So as follows I didn't like it the first time an angle I could second time understand I don't like it either. I don't like it either. So you know what I will be doing in may yes Sir what I wish I was doing it may. So if we if if both of them were simultaneously you to get our fiscal session over I would be happy with that but I don't care where the presidential or gubernatorial so that's my take on it back to the. Both equal for all I care. Thank you thank you. Three other questions go ahead senator flowers. I'm not understanding that last conversation between you and and the chair about changing. The primary back to me where is that in this bill the whenever. If a mayor I wish you would the so whenever you signed up in November on the presidential that's that's in this bill you sent up in November that that means a that means that's going to push our our fiscal session back to may like we had it in the presidential last time. And. I would agree with that then I'm not going to agree with this time. Still not following. Go ahead share I believe you can clarify something. So I think I understand your your question your concern on that so that the candidate filing period when it sailed is contingent upon when the primary election itself right because we have presidential primary if the president's on the ballot our primary is going to be in March but if it's just a gubernatorial election like we had this past election cycle our primary is held in may so every two years it's going to be different so the candidate filing period is contingent upon when that primaries sale so coming up for example you guys in any other candidates that wish to run if you look at let's see Page three Page two. lines one and two. if this bill passes the filing period will be held this November. Because our primary election coming up will be March of twenty twenty four. Senator. Comebacker. Of the United States will appear on the ballot at the general election beginning at twelve noon. Well the first Monday in November preceding the general primary election. Mmhm and ending at twelve noon on the eighth day there after. So the Hardys filing period when you go the role line one. And you change in that date. To the second day in March so it's only like A week window. For. The parties filing period. Yes ma'am there's about one week candidate filing period and that's not that's nothing new it's been a week for as long as I've been with secretary of state's office so that's not being changed neither is the the actual date of the primary election that was passed. Maybe twenty seventeen I believe to where if the president will be on the ballot in that election cycle then Arkansas participates and I believe it's called super Tuesday where the preference primary elections in March. Which pushes the candidate filing period back with this bill has nothing to do with what you're talking about. All this language was injunctive and they're putting it back to the way it was except for the parks that are restricting or underline every minute this is John. I believe you're correct yes what I'm saying is is it has nothing to do with whether we vote in the joint I'm sorry marcher. Or a four eighty that the whatever the law is now I mean this bill isn't about that is it. I don't think it is okay I don't know it impact maybe I could say this but it impacts but they're two different to different issues but they are impacting of each other. But it's not in this bill no ma'am. Thank you. Right and. Your any other questions. So. The we have one to speak. Two seventy seven Michael echo. Thank. Introduce yourself and. For. Thank you Mr chair how good morning everyone my name is Michael Paco I am the chair of the Libertarian Party of Arkansas and I'm here speaking on behalf of the party since it was our party's lawsuit that resulted in sections of the electoral code being ruled unconstitutional it seemed appropriate for us to comment on the legislative fixes that are proposed and this bill we appreciate the willingness of the secretary of state staff and senator Hammer to discussed this proposal with us and get our input we all seek the same outcome Repairs to the ballot access laws that are fair and equitable and that will be subject to further litigation from us or anybody else we generally approve of the fixes proposed in Senate bill two seventy seven with some reservations and also some hope for further reform The the first section of the bill which shall respect along time discussing here is really just a superficial effects to the party filing period as being ruled unconstitutional by the judge we didn't intend to mess up your primary election calendar looks but we were simply objecting to the fact that you political parties had to comply with the primary filing deadlines even though we were allowed to participate in those primary elections the fix in the Senate bill two seventy seven is simply to move those dates by one day that's fine with us although I would note that the deadlines are rather early in Arkansas compared to other states and I think Senator Johnson's comments that confirmed my suspicion that not all the Republicans and Democrats are in favor of the early primary election either but we'll we're okay with that we didn't intend to overturn those that sections in the first place now the remaining sections of this bill to address specific sections the statutes governing governing new political parties that were ruled unconstitutional in our case of first the ten thousand petition signature requirement for any political party is restored another the higher thresholds have been run unconstitutional three times a first Reform Party case in nineteen ninety six then the Green Party in two thousand six and now in our most recent lawsuit in our opinion a signature requirement of five thousand would be sufficient but and that would correspond to the threshold this recently that been adopted for presidential candidates but that proposals not on the table here so so much for that this bill would also eliminate the restrictive time frame for collecting petition signatures and Ford so. Bidding petitions and nominating candidates moving the deadlines for those It would move it to a correspond to the date of the state's preferential primary election rather than the prime rate the filing period we talked about earlier now the District Court noted that there's really no good reason that a new political party should be tied in any way to the schedule for per the primary process since they're not invited to participate in primary elections but by choosing the date of the press primary election itself at least that declaration is in compliance barely with the eighth circuit court's opinion that any date earlier than spring of the election here would be problematic so we would prefer deadlines working back to the latest date possible for having ballots printed by the secretary of state's office in the physical printers but as they said spring of the election year seem to be at least minimally acceptable to the federal courts. Now it's with some irony that I know that this bill would revert the law back to precisely well almost exactly where it was in two thousand twelve of the very first time the Libertarian Party became a new political party by petition signatures or by collecting petition signatures. So I've got to point out this section seven seven two oh five this section of the printer consideration here expressly governs a method for new participants in the political process and the federal courts of insisted the restrictions on ballot access for new parties be narrowly tailored to suit a compelling state interest but the Libertarian Party has now been a new political party six times and will surely make the effort to seventh time if necessary and that raises the question why is the libertarian party at this point recognized under the law as a political party and therefore required to follow the same rules as the other political parties By any objective measure the Libertarian Party of Arkansas is a political party except by the laws of the state of Arkansas so if you're concerned that the Libertarian Party in particular might take advantage of this position as a perpetual new party having it now it decades of experience in recruiting and running candidates the answer for a form is easy reform the ballot retention criteria so that new political party designation represents a gateway for a truly new parties to become established political parties not a bill to reform ballot retention rules to go along with this ballot access bill please stay on this bill I don't I don't want to hear your whole history and what you want I'm very well I will just say That we consider the ballot retention reform would be a a reasonable a complementary compliment to this particular bill and we hope that for those of you who may be interested in supporting it'll let us know that Senator Hammer no that said I will just conclude by saying that I hope you vote to recommend the passage of this bill and I would welcome any questions you might have. Three questions. I have one this this is enjoined. Are stricken right now look to the court system right everything in this. The early the early primary and everything the Courts enjoin this this whole thing you were where you see lands or written is not just where changes they're it it's enjoined by the courts right yes each of the sections of what is the appeal because companies with the enjoyment to the board that the secretary of state's office as a enjoined from enforcing those provisions so the suggestions were making here to fix those so that they are in compliance with the judge's ruling some of these lines or put back to the original way of of enjoyment with summer or change to satisfy the court possibility so. This I mean what I'm saying is the early early primaries or in foreign joint right now until until we change in our or put it back yes enforcement of those two paragraphs are enjoying today all right thank you. All right are you ready to close. Reddy close this is the proposed fix the lawsuit and gets us where we can move forward I'm sure the bill things will work on related to this but this gets a shot at shooting consists of lawsuit and or loss surgery done this this is what gives pathway forward and I appreciate a good vote all right is a what's will motion do pass second. All in favor say aye All opposed I. So your motion your your bill fails thank you the. Senator flowers. Senator flowers yes Senator Hester. Yes. Senator Hester yes senator king. Senator king. Senator Crowe senator Crowe. Senator Payton yes Sir Payton yes center Dotson. Senate Datsun. Senator Tucker. Senator correct yes Senator Johnson. Senate Johnsen NO. For. Possible somebody might expunge of second bring it back but I appreciate Mr Barbour Senator much. The next bill is Senator Dismang to eighty anybody here around. Okay. Through a. She's been. The all right all right House house bill fourteen oh four. Senators yourself and you're recognized thank you Mr chairman Delia hock District seventeen western Benton county this bill is to address of a situation that occurred during the last election in one county where the polling stations were quite a ways apart during early voting and tabulator machines and ballot boxes were needed to move from one day to a different location the next day and the following day and not the other location so this is to secure a ballots that are using a tabulator that at the end of the day at a particular location that tabulator is secured at the central location where all ballots are secured and that they're sealed until the day of election day when they are counted additionally if the ballots being cast or using a marking device in a ballot box those ballot boxes would be in a separate ballot box secured with the numbered sealed at each polling location and then secured at a centralized Ballot location until the vote until the votes were counted on election day and this only occurred in one county where there is a need to spread those polling locations out during early voting and move machines. With that I will take any questions. Three questions from the committee. Seeing none Let me see if there's anybody. I don't see anybody to speak for against this bill what's so we'll and you'll close your bill I'm close for the bill what's will committee. Motion to pass second all in favor say aye All opposed Like sign thank you thank you senator hawk sorry about the long wait. US Senate bill two eighty. Members I'm gonna do my best to represent this bill for Senator Dismang he is caught up but Graham slow we'll do majority of the presentation but really the intent to some cleanup language from from some some past concerns like you got to have paid for by on both sides of a sign and then maybe one of the more important things is given the ethics of the ability to raise our campaign limits to to potentially keep up with the federal limits You know we we've changes from time to time this rather the makes having to come change the law allows them of ethics to do that but I will I'll hand the ball off. Thank you senator Mr chairman members committee Graham Sloan director of the Arkansas ethics commission Senate bill two eighty is legislation this proposal by the ethics commission the it's also relatively short and its most of its existing language the first section section one Does remove a stray reference to the twenty seven hundred dollar campaign contribution limits Senator Tucker took one of those out of the law last session in this is another one and essentially that these commissions charged every odd numbered year with taking some federal consumer price index type numbers in adjusting the campaign contribution limit and instead of having to go in and the men the number in the code every time it changes in the the commission was charged with doing it by rule and then this is just another instance where the twenty seven hundred dollar figure still appeared in the code in it and taking it out just the it. Homogenize it with what's been done elsewhere or that appeared section two is amended the commission's enabling legislation by adding to statutes to the to the list of laws under jurisdiction so mmhm for deals with campaign signs on vehicles on Capitol grounds twenty five one one twenty five deals with the use of public funds to support or pose a ballot measure and the those laws already exist and they're already under our jurisdiction but what you've got here is sensually a list of of the things under our jurisdiction and those two things have been added in there not on that list section three the exact same explanation section for the exact same explanation of section five is the same explanation and we are adding court talks about finds in our name and legislation that a fine for violating Salem for shall not exceed a hundred fifty dollars that's in law it's just it's just not in the enabling legislation where are from power to set forth and I think it just would help to put that limitation you commission's gonna apply finalises if there's limitation on it let's put it there we're I'll be on this bill suspenders that we will notify not go over one fifty section six. then. Standardizes independent expenditure committee reporting with candidate reporting an independent expenditure. Committee is a group that raises money and spends money to expressly advocate the qualification. I'm sorry the passenger to feet I'm sorry the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and input expenditure committee any candidate they don't they're on different schedules and so you can have a group raising and spending money to get somebody elected and then the candidate they just would be on the same reporting schedules candidate and so it makes sense to place them on the on the same one the next safe casual section seven of is the Senator Hester right to law requires that paid for by language be put on a campaign signs this let's say if it's a two pack two is cited signed it needs to be on both sides the problem we run into the reason we're bringing this forty is that. People got signs out there it's on one side it's not on the other in somebody else's little take a picture of the side it's not on the file a complaint with us in the end you know what here's a picture and it's not on there and then when you go get a physical example of the sign it is on one side but not the other and I think this would just common sense just had a new head off complaints where it is on there just by putting on both sides and then finally section eight the there's some legislation passed I believe is twenty nineteen that made it a crime for somebody has been convicted of a public trust crime to file for office to run for office or hold office in the problem we run into the areas that is convicted of a public restroom in. Any jurisdiction out there so it's it's not only at the state level it's also the county municipal level in Arkansas but then it's also outside the State of Arkansas and our subpoena power ends at the. Eight border in so somebody's been convicted of a public trust Graham out of state we have no ability to get a copy of that order and so this would solve that evidentiary problem that just to require a complaint alleging a violation of the twenty eight three oh five shall include a copy of the of of the. court records reflecting that the person is in the been convicted of a public trust Graham and and that And then that's it that's that's the bill in its entirety. Thank you Sir any questions. Red center not. Thank you Mr chair Mr Sloan on page five the that last section line section eight their on line twenty four says an address alleged you're striking that language so this will be only for if there's an actual conviction that you can move forward with a investigation of the violation. That section. On that section of the code got added that made it Illegal to file for run for or hold office if you've been convicted of public trust Graham it the that language said that the commission would have authority to investigate In address alleged violations and and what this does is standardizes it with our neighbor legislation that of all the laws under jurisdiction what it says is that we have the authority investigate violations chapter and render findings and disciplinary action and so this this just it was just our power under that section was worded differently and I'm not sure what address means investigate and address of the law we currently gives us the authority to investigate violations and render findings and just bring action so it just it just takes our existing. The power in the plaza to this particular statute and it was just worded differently and I'm not sure what you know when we look at that it's just like we're gonna investigate and address and what what is the address main unit which is behind the commission can Render findings take disciplinary action so it done early so currently you don't have the explicit for you to render findings and disciplinary action I think we would I mean I think this was I think this is an attempt to just give us a jurisdiction over it and then but it just was worded a little bit differently in his articles at the same powers a different power but if if we if we're if we're to have enforcement power over it then it would make sense to to word is the same as as all the other you know the merry at loss under jurisdiction and if I'm reading it correctly section be there would Then limit you from accepting a complaint unless it actually had a company in court documentation correct so it so it would have to be somebody that had an actual guilty plea or nope nope not nolo contendere to be found guilty. Yes they they they would have to have that well yes and it what it does is the commission if somebody could just leads to some of those been convicted of a public trust crime and and not save wear and then faced with that complaint we we would first need to go to all circuit courts in Arkansas all the District Court in Arkansas essentially got all seventy five counties in fact you look for in order conviction but then it would be it could be out of state it could be in any jurisdiction so you know that Hey we're trying to figure out of somebody got to make to the pot check in Alaska in in so if somebody is gonna lead state it can and it is been convicted of a public trust ground and they obviously have more knowledge about it then we would and then and then they would know that to you know to to bring such complaint they would need to attach a copy of the court order I guess one. Can I get around to is if that is not part of the allegation in the complaint and that automatically throws it out correct okay thank you and and let and let me say that the. One another solution that would have been the give us a CIC power you know that we could go to the A. C. I. see system that would solve the evidentiary issue as it pertained to conviction of public custom in Arkansas but I see I see is not going to have you know out of state or federal convictions in the end I think you know then that would leave us in the Nelson county F. B. acts check in and and those are just willing to to. To get that to get to that level of the information or access to that system this is this a big ask. The real questions. Seeing none. your grocery bill. I'm closing a motion to pass motion by Senator Hester second by Senator not send all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator thank you. Senator Matt stone two ninety two. Your energy shelter you're recognized Masto state senator district to Mr chairman members the purpose of this band this is Senate bill two ninety two the purpose of this bill to help attract new or retain current election commissioners by making their payments. Commission commensurate with poll workers all workers currently make more than people in charge of our elections you know the election commissioners this bill also caps amount of compensated meetings to to prevent abuse abuse by having to committee meetings. There any questions. Go ahead senator flowers. Who's paying an extra five hundred dollars uh per public meeting the council. Mr chairman if I may may I call Josh bridges bridges appear from secretary of state's office yes. This is secretary of state bill. Yes ma'am. Yes they'll have as many meetings of ten as they can just and self and. Rep Josh bridges selection systems analyst this is actually one of the state board of election commissioners bill it's not as service sector states bill I believe I can answer your questions Senator the funds for that would I believe come out of the county's budget. I personally have not spoke with any of the county's or any the quorum court's county judges on this so I don't know that I could accurately answer that question. At at a hundred twenty five for each of the ten first team in. Then they get another. Twenty five dollars for each meeting. I believe that's correct yes. Lot of money in there right now just get twenty five dollars. No less than twenty five dollars per public be. I believe that's correct senator yes thank you. I don't see anybody on the speaking against or for this bill. The you know with the county is or anybody so any other questions from the members. Seeing none your closure your bill. They're closing the bill thank you Mr chairman once again the purpose of this bill is to eliminate turnover among Election commissioners it's hard to get election election committee commissioner to come and stay and serve in our county to current pay. And with that I'd be I'm closing present a good vote thank you senator what's the will of the committee. Motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye hi All opposed Like sign all right thank you senator. All right roll call. Senator flowers. Senator flowers no Senator Hester yes Senator Hester yes senator king. Senator king. Senator Crowe. Senator Kroll. Senator Payton yes Senator Payton yes senator Dotson centre Dotson yes Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker yes. This. Thank you Mr chairman. I didn't have that on record but there's five Yeas one night a and two not voting and you passed your bill the we're going to. Senate bill two ninety three. HMM are once again Masto Senate district presented on Senate bill two ninety three. currently there is no statutory process in the State of Arkansas to correct ballot errors this is fabulous is this process by way of example this bill is defined as a is to is best defined by recent situation resulting in a lawsuit by candidate so it is nine might've been jacked but it went down to Jake on the ballot of this bill creates a process when the ballot has a topographical error on how to best to correct the issue in a timely manner this bill also allows a candidate to review the ballot for the correct ballot for available to the public the at the County Board. The any questions Senator Tucker. Thank you Mister senator and yes I understand what we're trying to do here and I'm I think it's a good thing in I thank you put a thoughtful bill together I just have a couple questions about some of the language where I think. There may be a little bit of an issue from from my reading of it okay You take a look at page two. In the in subsection C. starting on line fourteen. This is a minor one but I have a large one about this subsection but the minor one is I think. We're kind of doubling up on a mission it's as soon as possible County Board of election commissioners shall correct ballot there in which there is an omission from the ballot of and then subsection two says a candidate omitted from a race so it is really in there twice and I don't think it needs to be okay Thank you subsection two could just say a candidate and that could be the end of that line. the the larger concern with that subsection is. Subsection C. the way I read the bill. Is really identifying the errors that can take place in in subsection D. as identifying how to correct those errors. Essentially. Subsection D.. In parts to send for. Address errors in the rendering of either a candidate's name or the ballot title. But there's no mention of an error in the rendering of the candidate's name or ballot title in subsection C. subsection C. only addresses omissions. A Daniel you want we can you come help answer these questions. In addition so. Daniel shall select commission thank you senator I'm I apologize I was stepped out to work on that one of the other conversations we had and and I may miss something that if I mail to say what I how bills designed and practicing zero million. The idea here is the current language there is no requirement the board meeting unless there's an air presented by affidavit we want to make that move and and what we have here is sort of a body of practice that's been developed for trying to codify with your blessing to say this is what we're doing when errors occur is this what those General Assembly wants us to do business over the entity to create clear authority for what's been done. So the default is that the board will fix an error unless under subsection be unless there's a a finding you by unanimous vote that that that this of a nature that it should be done subsection C. says these type of errors you have to fix. Subsection D. establishes the required mitigations that either are put in place for the entire election if you're not fixing it or until the fix is in place if you are fixing it dealing with different types of errors. I'm not sure if that answers your question but we're or on the exact same page okay. That actually I think emphasizes the than the need for my question because if you look at subsections. D. two ND for. Those are mitigation efforts for the rendering of the either a candidate's name or a ballot title. Correct. Yes but if you look back up at subsection C.. When identifies the type of errors that exist it's only identifying omitted. Races candidates or issues not. Days in which there was an error of rendering and that is the intent that if it's error rendering that's not a mandatory fix the the mitigations mandatory what do you fix it is a decision that the board has to make depending on the severity of the error so that is intentional. Okay. So for instance if it the ballot title it's a hot you know nine hundred words long and they've transposed to letters were not gonna put a law that says you have to fix that were two words or something very minor that that there is still discretion left of the commission under certain circumstances but not every circumstance I understand what you're saying. But if you look at the two it says shall be mitigated by I mean we're so where's the discretion the mitigation is required but so so corrected is I take that ballot away and I put a new balance place I have to get a new ballot developed tested and implement is that define the bill. With the distinction between correct the ballot being corrected or mitigated mitigated as I take this step to make it better no matter what in in the interim that's okay the the like the way the language is intended to work. If you say so the the first the first item I mentioned is that in situ. I think it on and after a candidate because there's already a mission mentioned on line fifteen. The way the way reads as shall correct ballot error in which there is an omission from the ballot of a candidate omitted from a race it's just kind of duplicative to me. And then the last. You're welcome to respond to that but I am happy to tell you that's the last thing I spotted what you what you may be able to explain this. On page three. Starting on line thirteen. It addresses emissions of races or issues but it does not address and an omission of a candidate. I don't see it elsewhere in the bill maybe I missed it were omission of a candidate is addressed. I would think that. That should say a mission of a candidate race or issue. There should be a series of three rather than two. This. Let me take the first one thank you in turn yep In. And I'm I'm I when I think about the more carefully but in mind reading as I sit here I think there is the distinction that under three it if I understand your point correctly that does provide a special exemption if you will one hundred three what where are you where are you so on page two line nineteen twenty that right this is that that's the series you think is is depleted now to on line eighteen. It says a candidate omitted one line fifteen RT discusses an image and a mission at the site the word admitted. I think omitted from a race is all duplicative I mean. I don't know if it could be that you have good point there Senator. Six. Okay And then the next one is. On page three one thirteen. But this is related to what we're just looking at right now because on Page two line seventeen eighteen nineteen there's there's three different items that may be amended a race candidate or an issue and then if you over Page three line thirteen subsection five it only addresses omitted races or issues it does not address omitted candidates and I don't see elsewhere in the bill where it addresses a ballot that submitted a candidate. So I. Yes so section subsection C. is saying these are the things you have to fix right and then the D. of course is the mitigation there really isn't a good mitigation for a minute candidate. It is perhaps part of that but I think you to the extent there is any mitigation that could be done. Well I mean this is part of why I say I think this is a thoughtful way to go about it because your created this whole process for special error correction balance budget which I think is you know you've done good work here and I'm I compliment you and it seems like. If the cans just outright omitted from the ballot I understand if if their name is is rendered incorrectly. The process of the mitigation process you have for that year it's not a new ballot is just saying Hey these of these candidates actual names I understand that but seems like a candidate is amended from ballot there ought to be a special. Error correction ballot just like there is if there's an amended race ornamented issue. I think the com plex city is if the race is on the original ballot will still be cast. That if you gave them a second ballot they to be voting in the same race twice if you do not then the ballot entirely than that has other problems I think we just have a good fix for that problem is the problem that's what's included okay so there's just no way to be if if I'm running as jondo and. Last County prince a ballot with jondo on there but no Clarke Tucker I'm just kind of create well it is to be fixed it is that they need the ballot this is going to practice soon as humanly possible. A in there may be a good thing that could be added to this is just a one problem that's not covered in this. Okay. Hi I'm Christian. Really questions. Red center main. Thank you and I appreciate the bill because on the last election cycle in my area I know of a fruit couple precincts that did not have candidates on the ballot and. Thankfully this was addressed very early in the morning on election day in and correct as fast as humanly possible but I think it is important that we bring as much clarity as possible to the local election officials on how to address certain issues and I appreciate the bill and the do you think this is a. Work in progress as Senator Tucker may be pointing out of or do you think this is. A final here. I had to ask a question. I think that it is a good there may be situations it doesn't cover and maybe we need to come up with additional plans and and protections under those situations I think for the as the instances that addresses it it takes the best of what the counties have developed organically and in the state working with the county's and make to the given the clear Thor to do it and and they're clear requirement to do it so we we feel good that this will provide statutory authority to address these issues again maybe there are other issues may be covered I'll be happy to work with with any of you all to to at those in but would like to. To proceed as far as. Solving the problems we've got a plan on how this all. Your other questions. Singing ninety one close your bill senator. I'm close I just appreciate a good vote thank you thank you what's the will of the committee motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you senator. Thank you. Thank room go back to the Senate bill two seventy five. Present your amendment. Just to introduce yourself and. You're recognized senator. Thank you Kim Hammer state senator district sixteen I hope this language aligns with what the intent was mentioned by Senator Tucker center Payton while ago and Daniel has just seeing this as he set them up to confer with the. Association counties been partners in all these efforts to make sure it's aligned or. Yes the one at the chair would allow Alexa Daniel just saw this so maybe you could read it just make sure okay. Okay all right Mr I think we're good. What's the will of committee on an amendment. Movin motion to adopt the amendment second by Senator Payton all in favor say aye. All right you are welcome to rehash if you want to same bill different amendment I hope it gets me to five appreciate a good vote. Mr any any further questions on the bill as amended. Say none whatsoever committee. Motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you senator thank you Mr chairman thank members committee. You got. Do what is. Fortino seven. This will go to fourteen oh seven. Thank you Mr chairman. Introduce yourself and you're recognized Senator Ricky district six. Luger ledger yesterday Sir cellphone. Centel McGraw I am the assistant director of elections for secretary of state. So Is a justice of the peace in garland county for the last twelve years we worked extremely diligently to make sure our elections were transparent. And that. Only qualified electors got to vote in this bill. Furthers those aims by making sure that county clerks receive voter rolls that are cleaned up and that people that are here and have the right to vote are the ones that get to vote it's very simple bill doesn't change anything for county clerks be happy to answer any questions. Questions by committee members Senate. All right Sir senator flowers. It may be the person from the Secretary. Thank. Secretary state office can answer when you say on page two in windows the sponsor Senator Ricky speaks about the accuracy and cooperating with other state to compare registered voters voter history and stuff. Do you are you looking for. Thank my Senate has moved to several states and a lot of young people will then Michigan twenty fourteen. Colorado twenty fifteen taxes. Twenty seventeen now back in Colorado. What is expected of a voter the only votes in one state the state that he is presently living in a rage so at his name appears on. the voter list. In the other state and he's. Lived in. What is I mean what are you going to deal with that I mean what are you expecting senator like that senator Dino states if you don't mind Senator you know the voter rolls are changing every minute of every day there's people dying the people turning eighteen there's people moving into your community and out of the community in your state out of state and as as responsible adults you know we're expected to injured voter registration but there are level what I'm asking the is. Is it the expectation that when. Of voter moves from a state. And has satisfy the requirement of residency to vote in that new state. Are they obligated to. Tell the state they moved from take my name off the rolls or what I don't believe that that is current law but there are lots of different ways that whether to secretary of state's office or your county clerk's can tell whether that person has been deceased by cooperating with different not or C. I understand that but there are lots of different ways that our local governments and our state can verify somebody's address they can verify their residency there's lots of different things that go about the and but it would be nice the point is that if you allow me to clarify my question because you seem like you're the I understand your question I don't know well let me stated another way because I would like the secretary of state's office is a this is their bill. If. A person's name appears because I don't even know if he took his name or call this name to be taken off the road in Arkansas your vote here. He doesn't voted Michigan anymore you to vote in taxes anymore. So. If you. Our. It is a cooperating. To the. Insure. A. Accuracy a voter registration rolls then. Added to five voters whose addresses have changed. Prevent registration in more than one state. The if if the person's name appears in these other states. What what do you saying and I mean they haven't voted in the other states that they move from. So what what is the. What's the intent of this is it the intent of the bill is to make sure that you cannot vote in more than one place. Because based on your residency based on your eligibility to be a qualified elector I understand that I'd like to hear from the secretary of state's the person thank you. Thank you senator I believe I understand your question in the intended this bill is just more access to information that US is the secretary of state's office can gather this information from other states as far as matching matching folks who may be registered in another state not saying that they voted their but that they may be registered in another state so that we have an Avenue to either cancel them in that state or cancel in our state does that make sense. I don't know if this bill is at. For the young people who are. Moving. For jobs for schools. We're just better quality of life that they can find out in the state. To be accused. Of some kind of voter fraud. They haven't voted in Arkansas. But their name is still on a roll in Arkansas it's been a long time since he's voted in Arkansas. So upbeat thank you Kleven the go down a the whole voter list in Arkansas and I mean what I think the question is yes if if a voter has moved out of Arkansas and change the residency then there's no reason for them to be on the voter rolls Arkansas. If the voter has died there's no reason for their name to be on the voter rolls in Arkansas if the resident has moved from one community to another in Arkansas it is necessary for our records to reflect that so that we have accurate information so that they can make sure that they get the proper ballot in that their vote is counted and representative in the election. Is the secretary of state's office prepared to go through. The complete. The voter list in the state of Arkansas that's what this bill. That's part of what this bill does is make sure that they are going with the start and how long is it going to take one is going and how much money is it going to cost. It'll be in effect after signing done. Well it'll be in effect after sine die. Where is that. From there the emergency clause in here and then. C. one there's not an emergency clause I don't have an answer for you on that. What is going to be in place at this time that. After it passes. After it passes this is this is going to go into effect this year and the process will start by which the secretary of state promulgate rules promulgated procedures and seeks to make sure that the voter is listed on Arkansas voter rolls live in Arkansas that their addresses are correct and that if they receive an absentee ballot or if they receive a voter card from our local county clerks that they are the legitimate person that lives at that address there. A resident of Arkansas and they have a right to vote here. And that's going to be effective upon sine die I don't have a I don't have a date with me in front of me but it'll be this year that this process starts. Senator flowers senator Dodson has a question and come back. Red centre Dotson thank you Mr chair Lookin zero the bill I like everything here I just have a question on page two which there's a sentence here that I'm not sure exactly why the this is part of it on lines five through seven of page two under item G. there says the organizations may not deliver the application to the voter registrar in the county in which the applicant resides less than thirty days before the next election so it that raises a couple of questions for me. Current law. No that's underline language well but you can't register to vote less than thirty days before election we can register vote you just can't vote in that election okay you can register to vote any doubt you're right there. And so this would prohibit someone who's going around and collecting or are registering folks from turning in. Those registrations and so someone who thinks they may be registered. For an election I mean that's always confusion obviously but more specifically before the next election that next election is not defined there there's special elections there's primary elections there's general elections there's elections going on all the time so basically there could be any number of election days that similar party organization would have to hold on somebody's voter registration it looks to me like this is an informational part of the requirement this is a something that those offices will be required to inform the voter or the person delivering those registrations as. Well no it actually says the deliver the application I know but if you look up above that online three This. At this in its amended to add additional subdivisions to read as follows that's in it that's something that is going to be required information given to those individuals. At the yes our there's a common line five in its the next. She. But but on the show interest so this section it's going to be an informational statement that is added to our voter application just inform the voter that if they fill out that application and give it to a third party person that it may not be delivered in time that they have the right to deliver it themselves or mail it themselves. Source informing them that it may not be delivered in time for them to vote in that election. Yes. And probably if we're reading the whole section code yes. I see that I I still just don't see how how that statement. Doesn't prohibit them from actually delivering. The voter registration form to the registrar it's informing them that the organization with which they filled out the voter registration may not deliver that registration to the appropriate department in time for them to vote in that election. It's not prohibiting them from delivering it or registering during that time just informing them that the organization that they filled out the registration with may not delivered in time. I'm I have to look at it some more but I still don't read them thank you thank you. Red Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr my first question is really. But that exact same sense that centered out so we just ask you about. And I think I understand what you're trying to do you're just trying to. Provide information of the person Hey they may not get your voter registration application in in time for you to vote this election cycle correct I mean that's what the intent is right. Yes that's correct okay. So. I think there either needs to be. Deletion of the word not. Or on line six this is a more than rather than less than. Because right now the way that a reses they may not deliver less than thirty days. And that seems to be the opposite of the warning that you're trying to convey it ought to say they may deliver at less than thirty days which would prohibit you from voting in this election I think the operative part of that can be found on line seven where it says because most individuals are not going to read this number one but people who study the code are gonna say they're gonna see that little and online seven. And say oh we have to inform them they may not be delivered. thirty days before the election and they may elect to deliver the application in person or by mail. Correct practice I think were philosophically on the same page here but. Yes very few people read the code but the whole point of this as you stated is to put this information in the absentee ballot I'm M. excuse me in a voter registration application correct so they will read that information I mean the whole point of this they're not gonna read it they're not going to read it but it should be accurate if it's going to be in the voter registration application and what you just said Senator Ricky is. They may not deliver it thirty days before the election which is. The warning you're trying to convey but what you mean when you say that is more than thirty days you don't mean less than thirty days so what is it what is it says here is really the opposite of the warning that you're trying to convey. Is it just me. Can I put in my two cents. Page gets next question so online five one this is may not. I think you change the not to the word failed. That third party organization may fail to deliver your application. And therefore you wouldn't be registered. I have a feeling the secretary of state's office was trying not to and impute anything negative on organizations that well but when you say may not deliver it does sound prohibitive I understand what's center Dotson was thinking and what we're talking about is that that third party may miss handle that location may not get there on time. And I think you could use terminology like they may fail to deliver the application to the. Term with the you know okay I'd be willing to pull it back in reward that section is there anything else that is of hindrance to you when the committee. You any other questions Senator Tucker. I just have to two of the things one is. If you look at page two one thirty one. It says regularly and before each election. Now. What is it what is election ma'am in. For I for campaign contribution an election means a primary and a general. and other sections of code it might mean a primary and a runoff or general and run off so are is your goal to do this once every two years like once every election cycle or before primary and general before the run off I think that ought to be clarified how do you see the work regular. So how this currently works in our voter registration databases we get the information say like from The DMV of folks who register at the DMV of also deaths we get from them with potential matches to the county's voters in their database and they go in and they work those batches daily. So that's how I envision that will would work is that would be a you know a day process so you could do it even before a run off absolutely okay. my last question is a little bit a little broader. which is about purging voters I don't see I don't really. See how that's explicitly direct under addressed in this bill purging voters from the voter registrations I do have concerns about the way voters have been purged from a voter registration rolls and so I understand what you're trying to do and you know checking of states I'm good with all that everything but will this first of all. please confirm or tell me what I'm missing the fact whether this addresses purging and voter rolls and in the bill but then really the broader question is if we pass this bill is going to lead to additional purging voters so if you look at it I can't remember which section is it does discuss what is to occur when a voter is removed from the rolls that supposed to be documented it's supposed to be noted and all those things where where is that. Page four. Yeah. One twenty on page four now that's going to the national. the United States Election Commission. At the I found it section eight on page five section on page four thank you. So if the registration is cancelled there is going to be documentation as to the reason for that purging and that means being involved elections for several years now we all understand I think that it's it's a whole lot easier for somebody to get to vote if the registration is if all their information is not lining up they've they've moved and forgot to change the address of the. I have forgotten change your name after they got married in a different one on the driver's license things like that it's a lot easier for those people to be able to vote than it is for us to get people off the rolls in those instances where we do find it necessary and just like any kind of role I'm sure that. those things are never perfect but every Election Commission runs in the instances every single year where they have incorrect information those those votes still get count. Thank you yes Sir thank you senator Dotson and senator flowers. Thank you Mr chair Your so back to that Page two lines five through seven their I think possibly just here's a suggestion on some language after the organization may not deliver instead of saying not. If you put be unable. May not save may be unable to. Maybe unable to deliver the not be the organization main be unable to deliver the application to the voter register in the county in which the application resides in and take out less than. And replace it with prior to the thirty days. Before the next election does that does that make sense if that's I think that covers my concern Senator Tucker that makes sense to you. I would think that you might wanna address Tuesday totally separate situations one is which that the scenario where they never deliver. Because I mean I think that's one of the point you're making your they may not ever deliver this. And so I would say I would have one point they may not ever delivered under any circumstances and then the second one is you should also be aware they may not deliver it and of this is were Senator down time a minute delivered on time. That's good yeah in time for you to vote in in the next elections. I. Thank you that and that's my point on I think that's good you can work however you need to think that's get senator flowers. I guess my my question and and what I'd be looking for is more information from the secretary of state's office in terms of. Adding. Other state agencies that did the General Assembly can add other state agencies to investigate car on. What the process is now I'd like to know what how do we do. what we do need to secure a safe. Election in terms of a. Voter registration rolls how have we been purging what if we how how many have we Persian how often. Is it once a year. What we do so currently we do what's called an odd your mailing that is we. It's called an odd year mailing yep the county clerk's do this every odd year after the general election and they send out correspondence to every voter who did not vote in that general election just to have them confirm their address. If they don't respond. Then the next on your mailing so the next I'm here they would send them out a cancellation notice that notifies them. That they didn't vote in the last two general elections and by not responding to the confirmation mailing they will be removed as a voter in Arkansas we do that every odd year and also we do get notifications from other state agencies as far as the department of health with deaths the part motor vehicle with anyone who is registered to vote or changing their address and we do work those day I'm sorry the county clerk's work those day. So would that still be a part of the process. With this legislation being passed into law yes that would still be a part of the process this would just be an imminent in addition. More ways to identify those voters that maybe have moved or died within you know other states other than Arkansas okay thank you. All right are you gonna pull this mark on the suggestions all right thank you Sir. The Senator Hammer you wanna three oh seven. Make it quick. So you're recognized thank you Mr remembers committee Kim Hammer station District sixteen. Rick you're recognized. Long and short of it is three oh seven creates legislation that would allow for monument to be placed on Capitol grounds in memory of though babies on born during the roe versus Wade era the recognition of those babies that's long short of it I'll be glad to take any questions. Your any questions Senator Tucker. Thank you Mister senator I just. I just have to. I mean. I don't want to litigate abortion that's not the purpose of the bill. But I am. I do think we can all hopefully agree that if a person chooses to get an abortion. They may have different reasons but by and large very intensely personal decision and and every abortion of took place in Arkansas during the time period identified in the bill. That was a choice that that person made that to have an abortion now some. Women who made that decision. May regret it. Or and for that reason or another reason may appreciate having a monument on the State Capitol I'm not saying it's universal but I would have to believe. That there are scores of women out there. Who. Felt like they had to make a decision either for their own health or for whatever reason it might be and for there to be a public monument. At which is a visual reminder it would just be. adding pain to the to the process and so I guess I just I wanted to voice that concern and and invite you to respond. This is now. This is unlike a. For example we consistently have morals for first responders or. military. And in those cases we all. Celebrate memorialized the men and women who lost their lives in service to this country this is a different situation that and and I do so for that reason I don't think it's appropriate for an M. a memorial. Because of all of the conflicting emotions that everyone who has had an abortion during the time period must have around that decision so. Sure and I want to be respectful that there are women who have made decisions. Probably from all perspectives of the situation some found ourselves in an unfortunate situation I mean we could run the gamut but also at the same time the one thing I would want to express his and that's why we have purposely read the bill that we did I want the monument to be tasteful respectful honoring of the babies that were not privilege to see life on earth although I believe life begins at conception and I would want to be sensitive to the fact that if somebody walks by that monument it It respects the multitude of emotions that are represented in that monument but at the same token we do have monuments on the capitol grounds that celebrate life as in the Little Rock Nine that recognized lives that were given in the line of duty both military and as public servants we have monuments for a wide range of things on the cap program I think it's important to our history that we have visual reminders of a painful chapter in our state's history magnitude by the fact that and it's without looking at it exactly two hundred fifty thousand plus babies that lost their lives to abortion and I think that the number alone is significant enough that it deserves recognition and we deserve to be reminded of it I want the mound meant and it is you know safeguarded in here on a monument that is going to be tastefully done and that if a woman does walk by and does see it that there's a degree of comfort and consolation that we have remember the painful part of our history history I hope we never repeat sometimes we need visual reminder so that we don't repeat history again. But I recognize what you say and I hope I don't know that satisfies you would I take into consideration concert I appreciate the conversation it's just what distinguishes this is I hesitate to use the word every because there may be a rare exception out there but I think over ninety nine percent of the women who got abortions during the time period identify the bill chose to have the procedure done. So. If it wasn't painful to them I mean that ma'am and may have still been painful but on balance they still chose to move forward which is not anything that you know any anyone anyone who's lost their life as a member of the military first responder has done and. And so I. We're we're just motor memorializing the consequence of a of a conscious choice that. these women made sure and I would also want to factor into that consideration the fact that it is been given testimony over the years that we have had a discussion around abortion in this capital that there are women who have had abortions that later had significant regret and remorse and what I would hope is it would be healing for those if we're going to discuss all the populations within the decision making process it could also be a healing for those that they would walk by and realize that their babies are remembered in that hopefully it would give them a place of healing to realize that we have done something just to keep it in front of our our state that that was a painful chapter in life and that we want to be cautious with any decisions made in the future. Okay. I just want one more question I appreciate the intelligence. But. We obviously know the position of the Arkansas legislature on on whether abortion should be legal but I think generally in the United States and even in Arkansas it remains highly controversial issue. And. Maybe controversial is not the right word but people have strong opinions on multiple sites very strong opinions was every other monument that we have on the State Capitol or by March. Are all things that have. Broad support among the general population and so I have to ask questions about directing a monument. That. On an issue that is. Broadly disputed among. Large segments of the population. I think the majority has spoken on the issue I would site and I'm sitting here recollecting from memory We go back and examine voting records but the ten commandments monument was a of very controversial monument that was placed on the capitol but the majority spoke because I think that's all the value in having reminder I think that there is debate regarding even maybe the civil war monument that's down on the corner and attempts to discrete that monument when the rights occurred here in Little Rock so I think that anything that we do potentially has controversy surrounded by iron sharpening iron to quote the previous pro tem and I think that this is again it is a good reminder that we need to have visually in order just as anybody would walk by and see her it reminds us of a chapter that we've had in our in our history. Remembering that's two hundred fifty plus thousand souls and babies. Other questions from members. The nun having no one signed up to speak for against the bill the you want to close your bill. Mr chairman I close I think I've said enough I think enough has been said was really committee motion and second by Senator Dotson all in favor say aye opposed Like sign. Thank you senator you pass thank you Mr chairman members of committee. Do business come before the committee we are adjourned.