State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Jerseys quorum or you won't be in here for awhile. So okay I I just don't want to block the view of anybody else if if there's a waiting set down or. Are you closing the door if you're not. The we're going to begin with bill that we've already heard Senator Stubblefield is is Having a procedure and senator Payton the. I will present the bill. Land commissioner do you want them to come up for all the amendments were made yeah Mr board with land Lancaster's office income okay somebody has a question I'll go ahead and get started if I be recognized your right here thank you so we heard this bill the other day they've amended it to take up the known concerns at a couple of us had in here in this committee If you oppose a bill be careful though amended and I ask you to sponsor to present it to. The the main thing I want to say I was thinking this the other day when they presented it but you know for years I was told by real estate agents that they're not creating anymore land. And then I find out that that's not the case at all rivers and streams due to create extra land sometimes of this just streamlines the The way that we deal with it through the land commissioner's office took out the fee increase and took out the methods of payment so it'll be standardized method of payment. Any questions and questions from members. I see no questions or discussion. Seeing none your clothes on clothes the motion to pass motion by Senator Payton second by Senator not sin all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator. Senator king you want to present yours. No the. One twenty one senator mark Johnson. This introduce yourself you're welcome to. Thank you Mr chairman. Mark Johnson state Senate district seventeen. this is Senate bill one twenty one is a clean up bill four ACT ten oh three that was passed in twenty twenty one is now law it to hand merge the closet received. Two thirds of both houses so we had a couple issues come up one related to litigation and that the the process of waivers where an entity may seek a waiver from certain provisions of the act for certain reasons and basically this has to do with if you're protecting a monument let's say the highway needs to be widened or there's a broken water main under it and uh the monument could be relocated in an emergency situation I could do it within thirty days without any question and just do what they need to do this going to be longer they'd seek a waiver from the history Commission I we've had one request that came out of Fort Smith to seek a waiver and the witnesses including the city administrator Fort Smith basically stipulated in his testimony that he it wasn't anything about the allowed provisions of why someone could could seek a waiver is simply about the they lack a particular monument and didn't want to do it well that the law didn't allow that but after they failed to receive their waiver they nothing was done and and tell us as individuals who have filed a lawsuit to went to court and tried to get the monument restored as provided in the law but there was an issue in the language of the judge seem to think that he didn't have the authority to actually order that being put back so he just kind of put it on it will we should we put in here if you look on page Well since we've we've changed all this we changed in the case of the above may two shall we cleaned it up where you shall actually order that he could enter go to a court of competent jurisdiction and I believe that I will find that just a moment. Well I don't seem to find it at the moment Mr but the but purposes it clarified the language where it does allow the the party that seeks redress the judge might specifically authorized and perhaps issue a writ of mandamus to to have them restored. All right thank you senator Biden that is exactly where it is it's Page one thirty five as the court of the court of competent jurisdiction shall of it also there's a provision in the existing law that states that a monument that is currently not on display for example and storage is still a monument for purposes of this act and is entitled to protection of. The. And a lot of people confused about that they think in that we're adding that no we're actually tightening it up just a little bit when present the bill before Senator Tucker noted that the look back period could be a hundred years or something and that you can go back and say well there was someone someone you were here and it's missing so we're going to sue you or something so trying to find some compromise language I don't know that the people that have a problem with the including senator Tucker he and I've had some good conversations about it and I respect his difference of opinion on on the bill as a whole in the issue as a whole but of the compromise we came up with is to basically create a look back provision which says that if an entity has a monument in his possession it's still in its possession and been removed it was removed without a waiver but it's still in its possession so if it's gone it's gone but if it's in its possession and it was removed from the last five years that this provision would apply so it's not open ended where someone could say gosh and in nineteen twenty three there was this I remember something up there so we think you ought to put it back while it's probably been ground up into a pulp or recycled into some other metallic object or something so we we set that look back as a compromise at five years and the the language about how the history Commission shall grant or deny the waiver it'll cleans that up to say that it is in in writing and maintained as a permanent record so if there was any question in the future it would be in there archives as as a permanent record of section three Talks about attorneys fees as if someone would have to sue the city or county or anyone let's just say a a city then they could go to court and receive attorney's fees if they prevail also in the case of the State of Arkansas or a county which would would have sovereign immunity they could make the same a plea for for fees from a from the claims commission so that because obviously of sovereign immunity so that's what the bill does again I consider clean up bill for from what we passed in twenty twenty one it's I think fairly straightforward and just like Senator Tucker now you can disagree about the overall view that the act but it is state law this moment so I'd be happy to answer any questions. The. Go ahead we have one one person speak against the bill. The. Good question Hey so I think you you talked some about this the five year look back period so we we would look back. Clearly before we had a waiver process people warm moving some of sups monuments yes so like you know I'm I'm I live in northwest Arkansas so we move something off the Bentonville square to another place that was reasonably agreeable very familiar with that so yeah so if somebody could then sued because there wasn't a waiver and answer to move it back one now because that would be something that that would be possible for the commission to grant the waiver they would do more or less what was done in Bentonville but it would would also have the history commission to have to check off on it simply because it is a monument but but that is a great example of how the process should and could work we're all parties were agreeable they found an appropriate location in a park in this is the same thing that would be applied in this yeah I am nor in a new case the difference being that of the history commission who are considered experts on what's historic monument was not would be involved in that process so so the Phi and I know everything we do now used in the working something that's agreeable but wifi why five years instead of when we passed the law frankly center this this staff lawyer that was working on the bill offered that as a as a reasonable time and I agreed with her hi I'm not wedded to five years if you insist on three years we can change it but I just didn't want to Senator Tucker is point was well taken you know a hundred years ago as it probably real ridiculous to even think that someone even located you don't want to put the any entities to your county or any state any jeopardy over something like that but it would it we hide sales arbitrary but it seems reasonable to tie. Your other questions reservation thank you Mr so basically instead of asking the legislature to pick winners and losers we've created this commission. And there's nothing that this bill does it takes the power away from that commission to make those decisions Izard just. Gives power to the judiciary system when somebody. Does not adhere to what the commission decides is that true that is true and also the the authority of the commission is up was established two years ago Senator it's also this just clarifies the process if they've rendered their decision on granting or not granting the waiver what the the options are to to the parties involved now I will add that that we tried to write act in three of of twenty twenty one to make it clear that the that the history Commission itself was not to able to make an arbitrary capricious decision on waiver the waiver is going to be granted for the specified reasons that are in the law thank you thank you Mr and it does not change that thank you senator. I see no other crew over go ahead Senator. Thank you Mr I just wanna go back to the example that Senator Hester was talking about. If the commission did not grant a waiver for that statute. Then the city of Bentonville would have to move the statue back to the town square if this bill is passed correct. It. And this is where we really do the and and there's no retroactivity on that sentry it if that were actually going on Tuesday and they said this this morning this happened or any time after April of twenty twenty one that that would be true but since that preceded that it was a. Read two thing it was done prior to that the process being in place that I think your your regional point to me would have applied in it be it would not have been it would have been allowed to go forward if they that whole process started today it would be one more wrinkle at in that would be that the history commission would be able to look at it and and and corroborate what what the interested party for to but I would think in the case like that again when you have agreed to thing it would be taken care. But there is retroactivity in the bill correct the the current law passed the retroactivity the five year loopbased actually tightening the retroactivity because it says any monument is in possession of an entity is a monument for purposes of this act so that's not changing we're actually saying but only back five years or less so we're we're actually tightening that from it in the Senate bill one twenty one. But my my main question and I appreciate you put the time on and on on the look back period so thank you for doing that. My main question however though is. Someone could have done something before April twenty twenty one. That was not violative of act ten oh three or whatever the act number was a twenty twenty one at the time that they did it correct but if this bill passes it would make it to where they could be sued for it. Have to put it back and pay attorney's fees on. The the all that's true center except for that's true under current law the only difference is that the provisional fees would now be in effect but the the the being sued and and forcing this to some kind of resolution through litigation existed before this act this bill and we still exist except that if it if deemed by the court they could receive attorneys for even before the effective date of that law. It was it was effective before the effective date I just I'm not following. The. Once it was in effect it discussed that in effect and I hate to use the word in effect but the look back under current law the act in three of twenty twenty one could be deemed indefinite. It because it says any monument in the possession of the the entity so. Let's say it's been said in a closet for a hundred years as you and I refuse is example it would it would apply to that but if it's something that they got rid of a few years before it's not their position so the law would not apply okay thank you senator king. So when down here I guess when this other bill that you first it was what in nineteen or twenty one stuff like that I didn't want to nineteen it was a cast in that a bit too broad center and so I I've narrowed it back down and we pass the bill two thirds of both houses in twenty twenty one I mean just be simple with it I mean it's this large role for local control until they do something in one area not provoked roll me on standby coming history nerds like I was a former civil war reenactors you know a lot of the guys went made movies documentaries and things like that we were in I was not a movie that so I don't agree with a lot of these things that you see out there people taking down monuments but then on the other hand. I mean in the whole general scope with this is this about I Mark. Controlling local control when you don't agree with something they did that you don't live in I guess we will Senator let me ask you that we we had a lot of discussion about local control Two years ago and I'll it It centered around if I use a city for example you have eight members of the city council and you know ten years ago a group really wanted to have a monument to someone or some thing that they honored and lollies were listed in the law basically war hero type things or not just an individual but a a generic soldier for example on a monument. Eight you get five members of a new eight member city council you could tear down anything if you allowed just absolute local control so we want to preserve our heritage and so therefore we the purpose of the bill was due to preserve that heritage and be respectful of of past people's decisions I had people asking for names of well this is about Confederate monuments in it I said well it could be about Confederate monuments also about the state you senator Fulbright on the backside of all my youth university or I mean I agree with you everything it's just you know if you want to change it change the city council I mean what times cities do dumb things and. Leave there and go to somewhere where they do Arkansas I guess this is the sort of the historical part I mean I'm agreeing when I see these things some Sichuan situation or I just like I said just kind of typically go for local control unit it's something to do is disagree with. Well center I'm usually very strongly for local control but also one for server heritage and this is a case where a state of Arkansas sits parameters in the law and we did two years ago of how those how this issue would be dealt with and again having worked on it since I was first elected the Senate I was thrilled to get it passed when we did two years ago I also it mentioned at the time it would yes it would protect. This mine would also protect bust of governor Clinton or president Clinton at the governor's mansion it would protect the Little Rock Nine monument on the north side of our capital and all and all the other monuments including the ten commandments monument which is you know was land allies to not long after it was first put up so. Behappy answering of the question is the. See no other questions we have one to speak against. Lanny Richmond. This gives your name and who you're with us and you're working to yeah yes thank you Sir thank you Committee Leding Richmond with the Arkansas municipal league legal counsel over there. I think you can operate a gas why we oppose the bill but I do think I can help Senator Tucker and senator Johnson actually out with some of the confusion so the original bill deemed everything a monument if you still held it that that's true what this retroactivity portion does is I'll say looking back five years you can bring a lawsuit the original bill didn't say that if you moved in twenty years ago that's bad it said that's a monument absolutely if you still got it that's a monument but the portion here that's going back in time we strongly oppose that we don't lawsuits over something that was legal at the time just think that's bad policy and then especially when you couple it with attorney's fees we think that you're just legislating funds into private attorneys pockets because the city's did something that is perfectly legal at that time those the two major sticking points as you can imagine a lot of cities a lot of construction over the past five years there are likely a lot of things moved. And we don't think they should be punished because that lawful behavior I want but labor the point has been a lot of questions but I'll be happy to answer anything clear out anything I can. The questions from members surprising thank you Mr so I understand what you're saying about legal at the time but they're not being punished for that they're being punished for refusing to put it back up if the commission does not grant a waiver so it's not that they're being. The council. For what they did when it was legal at the time it's the fact that we've passed the law we put the commission in place and the the commission deems the circumstances of any particular case. they've and they won't grant a waiver because they think the monument should be put back up for to a new location or whatever. And if the city refused at that point then they wouldn't be punished or held accountable for what they did three years ago they'd be punished or held accountable for their refusal to do the right thing now. How how my wrong there yes Sir I think the main punishment here's the attorney's fees because provision but if you look at section to what it says is if you move something without getting a waiver. You messed up and that happened five years ago a lot of cities moved things without getting a waiver because no waiver exist and there would be no way to a vast for one week we literally move things without a waiver because that's what the law said we can do this section two says if you moved without waiver you messed up you get sued even though what happened in the past at I hope that makes sense Sir so would there be a cause of action if. They failed to get a waiver now. Or I mean I would have if they apply for a waiver because they see that they're they have exposure here and there denied a waiver and told you need to put it back up and they put it back up is there any course of action I mean there's no damages how going to be a course of action I would still think so Sir because they originally remove it without a waiver and this is saying we go back five years so someone could challenge and say you messed up five years ago and a judge would I don't agree with that challenge the the way this is written it says the court shall usually rely on judges to get it right and to make a remedy that makes sense but this is the court shall and we appreciate the intent behind that but I I think their hands would be tied I don't think that's likely Sir I think most of our citizens are pretty reasonable it could happen and with a lot of cities moving sort of city halls I'm certainly had a lot of things moved and we may not be able to put it back in maybe an impossibility at the moment but I certainly appreciate I thank you for your input I'm not a lawyer I just play one in Little Rock thank you absolutely Sir thank you. The questions. So. What you're saying the look back should be to the time of the first enactment in twenty twenty one. I think that be very fair so I'd still have concerns about attorney's fees typically that's limited to when you've really harmed an individual I don't wanna granted tourney's these to everyone in the world to bring a suit by as far as the look back period I think that made a lot of sense and. Well it would make more sense to me if you did it to the back to the time that it was an active in twenty twenty one if they if with this previously officers in place there and the waiver was what granted and they and they took down the monuments. So they were acting outside of good faith and I don't mind the attorney's fees to fight something like that so. I think it would be wise to place your look back instead of five years it adjourned one time in twenty one or one one. Mr chairman I would be happy to do that again the staff came up this is a compromise because of of the instances tuition but but if I could be given one more opportunity to circle back and tweak this a bit I again I'm not truck we're not trying to go back and say gotcha just some city or county that made the decision. Not in any kind of of adverse way would just that's what they did there was a situation at the Arkansas arts center where outdoor monument was you just destroyed that might have violated this act but uh there was no malice aforethought it seems in that particular thing so again we're not trying to play gotcha but when someone is basically thumbing their nose at a law that passed almost two years ago is amended effect then we need to have a way to enforce it issue said so I I'm I'm I'm hearing this really well I think we'll we'll go back to the effective date of this act. Ten oh three which was April twenty eighth twenty twenty one and if you all have an issue with that one please come to me and I would like to clarify in a case where it's specific knowledge that an entity has a monument is position that was taken down but they were holding it on April twenty eighth and that could be proven then the law would apply because it does specifically say in the law on This is this is for straight from act ten oh three it says so on page six of the of the act it It line five three sevens is a historical monument in existence on the effective date of the this act is considered a historical monument for purposes of this subchapter and later as sorta money not currently displayed is considered a historical monies so again we're not trying to play gotcha and I I I hear the legitimate points by a committee and and but by Mister Richmond and if we'll we'll I'll make that change and we'll see you back saying will will get it out as soon as possible so you been so patient and we're well committee I appreciate I worked on this one since my first day in the Senate Mister chairman so I'm it's okay to work on a little bit more is always more complicated than you think when you set out but I appreciate the committee and will be back with the repairs thank you very much. Senator dis referred Senate bill two fifty eight. Your introduce yourself and you're recognized one four. Thank you Mr chairman thank you committee I'm inviting Leslie as well up here and I'll let her introduce yourself real fast. Leslie Bellamy on the Director relations for the Arkansas secretary of state. Thank you members we Tyler dis Senate district thirty five this is Senate bill two fifty eight. This is about election integrity and the reason for this bill is is we have been working with the heritage foundation as well as the secretary of state's office in order to strengthen our life election integrity across our state and this topic is around absentee box Dropbox locations currently they're really not happening across our state but our attempt is make sure that they don't and so absentee drop boxes or unmanned locations where people can distribute their absentee ballots and it heightens a potential for fraud and ballot harvesting and it also it creates risk for good ballots to be damaged or destroyed within those drop box locations and so this bill attempts to shut the door on that potential also it's important know that Arkansas is according to the law and let election integrity scorecard the sixth most secure state across election integrity so we're doing everything we can to ensure that we do have the utmost integrity across our elections so that's what this bill is about and we'd be happy to take any questions related this bill. When center Tucker. Thank you Mr how does a Dropbox heighten the risk for fraud. Sure so with an unmanned location for the ability to anyone to bring drop ballots that and could have been harvested illegally it creates the potential for bad ballots I'd also add that it a lot of folks don't realize the potential for destruction of good ballots so if you've got an unmanned location where someone could come and destroyed the contents of that box that were good ballots that is a that's a potential I don't think we should take on a first date. There's really two separate issues And I have a question about the harm to a good balance but my my first question. Is really about the potential for fraud and I know you said it increases the possibility for harvesting of ballots and yours gonna have to educate me I don't understand how that could be sure Leslie would you like to have them. One of the things that it could do is is simply because a lot of confusion if such bad actor were to stuff the unmanned ballot box with ballots that are not real ballots it would cause a lot of confusion in the count of bad ballots could actually be counted because once they're in there pretty much untraceable so it would cause a lot of tracking for the county clerk's office is the custodian if they had to go back and try and figure out what was possibly a bad actor ballot verses again ballot this just puts it in the hands of the custodian by Arkansas law anyways the county Clerk this just makes it that work status. Under current law absentee ballots can be delivered in two ways either by personal delivery by designated bearer or through the mail correct correct. How is there a heightened risk for everything you just described with a drop box that does not exist with dropping items in the mail there's a lot of things that could have been one of the things could be that the ballot box itself could be vandalized it could be possibly set on fire there's several things that begin on me and they could it could be stolen you know you want to make it as secure as you can but if it's not almost and penetrated will and may and there's a lot of things that could happen. So then center yes let me let me come back to the of senator Kaine. Thank you senator came this is really so again what you're talking about when you say the drop box could be harmed. That really relates to. A detriment to a good balance and that's not all my questions about right now okay my question is about heightened risk for fraud. Harvesting balanced fake ballots whatever you wanna described in mass how does the risk exist for a drop box that does not exist with drop post office boxes are not met where you drop mail at the post office that's not manned. You can stuff as much as many items into a a drop box at the post office as you want they can be mailed to the circuit Clerk. So how does the risk for fraud exist in a drop box that does not exist with sending items through the mail well I think as I previously said one of the major reasons would be a bad actor that has intentions to stuff the box box for your confusion or if they wanted to be a designated bearer for more than what they're supposed to be here have got a contact with the ballot they were never supposed to be the custodian of that would allow them way to drop Senate ballot those ballots without ever being seen or having to sign in on the designated bearer law because they can just drop it off and should never have that person's ballot to begin with. Okay I don't I still don't see it but my last question Mr share is on the side of the damage to legitimate ballots which we certainly want to avoid. Did you consider. writing a law that said you cannot have a drop box unless it secured. No I'm happy to talk to you about reading one just like that but I believe this language help secure our elections in our ballot process adequately. In Senator Tucker I think I could clarify for you having worked in a county for sixteen years before I come to the state I was witness to a person that had around twenty ballots before they should be and you can't be a designated bearer for twenty ballots she took them into the courthouse at the time but also that would allow a very loud hers or was in mean box she could drop those twenty box those ballots she should remain in charge of without ever having been questioned at all and I'm just not seeing or we would have never known. Those ballots could have been dropped in the mail to the correct but she should have ever had those ballots she was not the designator designate appeared to be an custodian she will prevent that she couldn't drop them in the mail but this is just another way to prevent it she didn't get those ballots because a drop box existed. No Sir but it does prevent her from being able to deliver them an easier method than having to go mail herself. Thank you. Senator Teague. Go back to the scene of the Election Commission decades ago and going through this I mean in the somebody incidents that you know there was voter fraud going on back when people were denied it and everything and so we even had everybody talks about security they go well apps these are secure the mail go back to Hudson Allen case over there where they were actually following the mailman along behind it and taken out the the ones in in voting for and we said that I mean there were some of us went and did enough to say that there was fraud going on and got land base and all that and like I said being on lex commission you know when you work elections you can see where you know elections can be fraught it and they can be very hard to catch and especially if you have protectors that we're doing and that's what happened years ago every time you would make a complaint or do something so long story short you know going through this and and Dropbox I don't like drop boxes I don't see where there you know important the only thing I'll give you a situation that I feel like needs to be thought about so there was a polling site that a bomb was put at. It did not go off in the poll workers actually moved the ball and it was in a Pepsi can be if you think about it was a sophisticated bomb the FBI later you know put out twenty thousand dollars trying to find it if the I came in and you know where that place was that. Was in Osage Arkansas anybody anywhere sages that on four twelve little small town is most famously known as we're killing Gurley brown cosmopolitan was born in bury and Osage clay works which will give a plug to so I mean in a small rule area you had that so let's have a situation of like of emergency situation we have a bomb a bomb threat in which I'm shocked in this nation we haven't had something like that happened across the country where there is that kind of clout let's say they find it so what if you have that it early polling site. I mean I've kind of worry about like but in this world today with everything with threats everything like that it's shocking in this country we have not had that type of situation like a school shooting shooting situation a polling site. I mean like I said I hate to always think about everything but in this never worked a day I'm worried about like closing off all these things I mean is there some top amendment that would go an emergency situation I mean I just gave you a situation Seitz Arkansas in two thousand either eight or ten but I was up there at that time when they were investigating everything and it was a sophisticated bomb and they never called who did it. even though they did everything that fits did an excellent job of looking into it that means so I kind of worry about like this thing a ballot drop off boxes not secure I don't believe that it all up but on the other hand me what we have a situation where that might need to be an Avenue for people to vote at in there might be closed off I mean is there some emergency situation it can be put in this bill that would give allowances because once that happens. You know if you shut up drop boxes then how are people going to vote. In a situation where they can't go to a polling site because of a bomb scare. You know my answer that Senator Teague is The intent of this is today we we are doing everything we can with the world we know about today there I understand there's a lot of what isms and and what about this and what about that. You know to to Senator Tucker's point as well no fraud can happen in a lot of ways in situations can can bring an uncertainty everywhere. But I think we've seen that the risk with what this bill attempts to do is to mitigate thanks we've seen maybe in other states other examples where even the perception of. And we want to make sure that voters have a confidence in our elections in I'm happy to work with you on if there's something down the road we we may wanna come back and look I I believe this in itself is ready to go to help secure and and put public trust back at an all time high we're Arkansas is known for having election technically because we're removing the ability for for for potential fraud through these boxes agree that but you know what you gonna do in case of a situation like I gave you that actually happened here in Arkansas I mean of the lark said voting location in people can't go to early vote what's the Avenue to to remedy that and I just worry about shutting off everything that could be possible to make it happen rather than let it happen which I'm shocked in this country hasn't happened yet have a shooting at a public school senator king earlier grief you that there are situations that are beyond counties control at times and could it could be a flood it could be a tornado like happening Clinton one time I do believe that would be a separate type of bills to cover that such type of situation and I do believe that your comment about the bomb covers another situation that and man ballot boxes might not be a very secure at all because I was one that I do not support this open ended ballot but I'm just saying in this situation what do you do if you wake up the next day in and solemn springs we have an early voting location and no one can vote then everybody's going well what we do like what now and that's you know we don't think about those situations and I think we should have. Supplyhouse counties have alternative Places that we had a flood one time and and I White County that Higginson the town Higginson completely flooded and so we had an emergency plan in most counties have emergency plans in place for alternate and we actually had to just divert those voters back to the courthouse so I'm I'm happy to sit down with you and work on a number saying plan if you want to just think of that situation because in real counties the in Madison County for example there's only one early poll inside and I know you have emergency but I just don't want to see. This. Not be an option even though I understand mark the whole fraud thing and everything like that it to me is so dangerous it's unbelievable and I I agree with everything like that and our office but I will say. Cool maybe like I said it's been sometime Election Commission work elections in in having the situations like we've had it Carroll County what would happen so that's the only thing I ask is you think about secretary of state or separately you know what about emergency situations where you know like I said rule counties we don't have one one early voting sites you can be an impact where they wanna go but what they want to do and any maybe the situation of not like a tornado that is moved through a bomb threat did have several days impact where people think why don't want to go to any publicized vote. You know I'm saying I mean if you're not right on there somebody's put the sophisticated bomb there we had to go through this in Carroll County think about it again I think Sir that they basically would have contingency plans in place for things like that some counties don't we work with them on their emergency plans in a lot of on file those with us or with the B. I. S. I think this bill concentrates only on the unmanned boxes in the security of that and I think it does it in a very good way and I'm we will be open to discussions about any other bill to make we're all for safety and integrity so I think I'd be happy to talk to any you about. Other methods to protect the US but the unmanned boxes are very easily Either vandalized possibly taken set on fire blown up is is like Senator king said. Really questions. C. nine any discussion. The grocery bill one. Okay. There's no for millions. Go ahead Senator. Well. We take a motion first I just I don't know go ahead I didn't I didn't see you got to no it's not a question of a comma okay. Go ahead. Yeah okay I just. ACT I can't see. And I were in a respectfully ask a bunch of times what the what the increased risk for fraud as opposed to what currently exists and now I I still don't see any increased risk for fraud just wanna know explanation that I heard makes any sense to me for increased risk for fraud I understand perhaps there would be an increased risk for harming legitimate ballots but the answer that is to make sure that the drop boxes or secure or man or whatever the case might be this is not the answer is currently not being used in any county in Arkansas so we're preventing something that is not even happening we have three cases of voter fraud in Arkansas in this century so now we're just passing laws that that we don't need and there could be a need for a drop box in the future that secured and so for those reasons I I will be voting for the bill. Your clothes your bill you Sir thank you members and thanks for the the the commentary today this is good I believe this is needed because each Dropbox and box across the country acts as a beacon of mistrust for voters. I disagree that it it I do believe it It increases potential for fraud you're right Senator Tucker that you know there's there's the potential for for someone to do the same things that we're talking about would drop boxes through the mail. But by allowing drop boxes it only intensifies the the opportunity and so today we believe this does strengthen our integrity process I also think it puts a higher trust back for people to know that Arkansas is not going to allow that is so even visually and psychology site it is such the psychology of allowing drop boxes I believe naturally puts a mistrust in our elect election process and so on top of that even if you don't believe me on that the ability to destroy a good balance should make you want to support this bill it out of fear of that situation so I appreciate a good vote thank you for what is present the select. What's the will of the committee The motion by Senator Payton. Second second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. The thank you senator you pass your bill thank you members. The next will go on to. Senate bill two fifty nine senator Dave Wallace. Mr insurers yourself when you're recognized Senator David Wallace District nineteen. Commission chair members. Pretty simple bill that's going to help. Legislative audit in the prosecutors and the Attorney General's office work more closely together. Line ten and eleven and part of twelve pretty much bills out what it does. Home page one. The law now requires league audit to provide. Audits that we feel need to be looked at further by prosecutors or the legal system only to the prosecutors. Copy does not go over to legislative audit or whether to the tribunal's office. This bill corrects that and when we send our report to the prosecutors will also do a courtesy copy over to the attorney general's office. The Attorney General already has the authority to prosecute cases. So that doesn't change but in the past they've not received copies of the cases we referred to prosecutors. So this corrects that. Second party does is makes a language a little more precise. Currently the law says that the prosecutors rule come back to us in a timely manner and report what they plan to do. We are replacing the phase timely manner with forty five days which we believe is adequate we also put the same time limit on the Attorney General a passing this bill so what it does for us is it gives more erosion are legal quiver. For the the bad actors out there that or. frankly. Cheating our taxpayers are taxpayer's dollars. And with that I will stand by for your questions. It questions from committee. Go ahead. Thank Mr Armey problem which you're doing Senator my only question is. In subsection either on page two there's. Kind of a penalty for non compliance of a prosecuting attorney. If they don't investigate within a certain period of time but there's there's not a corresponding provision for the attorney general's office and I was just curious for. Why there's a distinction there. Unless for some help on that one okay. Alex if you would come up with. Okay. Can you answer that question. The introduce yourself and. You're recognized again. Thank you Mr chair Alex button with the attorney general's office I'm quite frankly Senator Tucker I do not have an answer for you on that and I know that this is something that. And the attorney general's office has no problem with and but I do not have an answer to your specific question okay I'll be glad to put the bill down if if you need. Or I'll get I'll get to this back to you I'm I'm happy to vote for again I don't have a problem which don't I I just was curious whether prosecutors the attorney general's office was they were treated differently on but that that was that just curious. Your questions from the committee. With Senator Hester from several so I I I could be wrong we getting it legislative audit finds that somebody took a hundred dollars through four five different times this is the prosecutor in the prosecutor's office is busy dealing with violent crime and rapes and murders and they don't go after somebody took four hundred dollars now legislative audit's bent out of shape about it I mean is that we give our prosecutors prosecute your discretion to choose what's most important deal with that time if this is going to this is going to tell them that Hey you're gonna have to put that murder aside because you've got to spend time on the somebody took three hundred dollars is that what this does no no don't do that what it does is it allows a prosecutor if if he's just too busy to do this we get that. If it. This bill simply allows. The tribunal to receive the same report. That. The prosecutor already give me and RT doing it. The prosecutor or getting report K. the Attorney General's office is not getting report so this. Kids in the. the the this allows them to review the case as well I mean what happens is. The Attorney General and I'm I guess to speak for the trees on all but I've talked with the they don't tend to step over the prosecutor but for prosecutor doesn't want to pursue this case. They were really busy. The problem the Attorney General already has the option of doing that. So they could do that without this bill at all. But now they get to see the case he's here I'm give that. One of my understanding since I've I've been on it before is you saying those things to the prosecutor the whole process is I mean if it was a large sum of money or something that one action on by the prosecutor the director of audit could send it to the Attorney General's or or. If you're on a committee kid requested me sent to the attorney general's office for possible prosecution I don't think any of those things are already done for small amounts are small infractions the and I don't understand I don't know what the offense of non compliance I don't know that to a prosecutor would care about. Having that so I'm good I'm I think I'm good with the meal hello thank you it gives a better opportunity for prosecution in those big cases that that they're bad actor so is there any other questions. Seeing none that you will close your bill I'm closer all right what's motion and a second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye aye aye All opposed Like sign thank you senator thank you Mr members members of the we are going to have to adjourn for The first session the. What's the will of the committee did come back after after we recess. I'd like to come back in the here senator Dawson's bill today if it's if at all possible if the if the body is okay with that. With that. S. the two sixty okay. We will we will recess and returned after German for one bill Senate bill two sixty thank. We are in recess. Yeah. That's what you're. at we are in the out of recess. Senate bill two sixty is there a. Mr chairman there's amendment okay. While you're all getting the amendment all the amendment is an emergency clause That an emergency clause the bill I make a motion to property on. This motion on the amendment. Second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye hi All opposed Like sign. Go ahead Senator at. Thank you Mr members of the committee Senate bill two sixty as amended. Does one simple thing and I'm gonna also let. In Camden Underwood who is my House because sponsor on this make some opening statements as well so I'll before I get into a let you go go ahead chair recognizes it and and Tell us your and you're talking to. Thank you chair thank you committee in Camden under would state representative for district sixteen in Northwest Arkansas. All out of state special interest groups can come to our state and they can try to change our laws change our constitution by just getting signatures from fifteen counties which are typically more populated areas or larger counties but by doing that they can ignore the rest of statement nor more rule parts of the state as well that number is set by the state constitution at a floor so it says at least fifteen counties so the conditions of the floor but doesn't set a ceiling on the number of counties the representative representative and the signature gathering process under this bill or proposing is that the signatures together by fifty counties. a passing this bill we can ensure that more cancers have a chance to participate in this process and particularly well funded special interest groups out of state special interest groups cantopop passed other parts of state moral counties of the state and I would require more widespread support and they're not gonna get this building that actually I think that pretty much sums it up more than happy to try to answer questions. Three questions go ahead senator. Thank you Mr chairman. I want to talk about that constitutional provision but I can't I think I want to just ask first ask a few questions. There's a difference right between getting something on the ballot and then voted on. There is. And. No matter how something gets on the ballot. It's still Arkansas citizens and registered voters who ultimately vote on whether to approve or not approve something correct yes Sir. So. We don't have out of state interests making laws and since they're voting for or against laws right. Thank you yes. An act out of state interests can also hire a lobbyist to pass the bill through the legislature. Chapter I think it's a great yes and we know that happens all the time. Right. Share. So But ultimately it's up to the Legislative whether they vote for against the bill just like it's up to the people of Arkansas whether a vote for or against the ballot petition. After. Beyond that I do wanna. Reference article five section one of the state constitution. It establishes a balance of power between the legislature and the people in initiative process. Is that fair sure. The introductory clause says the legislative power the people of the state shall be vested in the general General Assembly. Which shall consist of the Senate and house of representatives but the people reserved themselves the power to propose legislative measures laws and amendments to the constitution. To me that establishes a balance between what the legislature can do and what the people do you have any reason to disagree with that. The second. The first power the next line reads the first power reserved by the people is the initiative. So and that balance between the legislature and the people the first one reserved is for the people to initiate their own constitutional amendments or ballot petitions or anything along those lines turn off okay do you are you concerned at all that this bill changes the balance of power that exists right now between the legislature and the people and shifted more toward the legislature than than the people I after our state motto is the people rule no no Sir I appreciate questions I think work empowering our cans and by doing this because essentially I mean they still have the right to to bring these matters we're giving more cans of voice on this issue and so what I think the way the process is now a lot of our Kansans are taken out of the equation you're saying we're going to go to the select areas I'm going to ask their opinion about the stuff and then we're avoiding everybody else in the State of Arkansas so what we're saying is we want more buying we want water spread support across the state and if you get that by and then it's then it goes about and honestly if it gets on the ballot and it's going to pass in that situation this allows for anyone and on. But then again I go back to my original question which is that when it's on the ballot. All seventy five counties participate back into question at that point correct sure. The only thing I would add to that is though that once on the ballot a lot of uh special interest out of state special interest money is poured into that too. Provide us the sale information sometimes isn't accurate in this way it allows an actual an additional threshold for our Kansans have more by an early on in the process. Do you think this will result in in more or fewer ballot petitions being about I think it'll result in more at initiatives that has more by across the state. Do you think it'll that'll lower the number of overall help positions there's is initiated I don't know if that's the case but I would I would say is what we've seen specialist last cycle is there was a lot of things I was on the ballot all of them was rejected by the our cans and so it didn't seem like to me that a lot of our Kansas had a lot of mine on on those initiatives including the three that were referred to by the task that's right and. Did you consider a corresponding provision saying that the General Assembly he said check with fifty counties before we were for an amendment out to make sure there's buy in from across state no Sir but I I think that you know of course we're still we're responsive to our constituents and you know I I plan to represent my constituents and voting on things that I feel like that they would you know be supported by so obviously if something like that comes up I'm gonna list of extensions on those type of ballot measures. Thank you and my last question toward the end of article five section one of the state constitution. There is a clause called the unordered restrict unwarranted restrictions prohibited Clause and says no law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons from giving receiving compensation for circulating petitions in order to prohibit the circulation of petitions nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions are you concerned at all that this bill interferes with that because the state constitution no Sir and and actually I have a couple of court cases here one from the Arkansas Supreme Court that state that actually on another issue kind of on the same legal theory states that it doesn't bar the legislation adding two things are set as a minimum so again reinforcing the idea that if the constitution sets a floor that there's an opportunity for the legislature to to raise that but can't go below that floor as that's the Arkansas Supreme Court case and edition we have a U. S. Supreme Court the also recognized as a constitutional floor does not impede for does not impede a different ceiling set by common law or statute so I do believe there are some some cases that land support for this idea the Arkansas Supreme Court case that deals specifically with article five section one or with another customer no service and it was about a different constitutional provision can you Miss the citation for that can that was paid versus Martin okay do you know do you have the I look at what I have years to fifty seven Arkansas five seventy six ninety seven. Okay thank you appreciate mission presents my questions thank you Mr. Senator Hester. Yeah with the with the legislature of sins out Constitutional Amendment Hendren state reps in thirty five states centers have the opportunity to vote on it all representing the rule in urban areas so I would argue or would you agree that the. Part to roll Arkansas are heard by their elected representatives when when the when the legislature is in something else would you agree with that in yes Sir also I think this is you just much like we as our Kansans enjoyed electoral college because we're not ignored in the presidential election in the same manner we are honoring our up more rule counties through this measure you know so I was you know I was raised in Carroll County or Madison County they are always easily ignored in these processes when out of state interests come into by our constitution this would make those smaller rural areas ballot again much like we as a state of Arkansas appreciate electoral colleges would be a similar measure to make sure our rule counties are are honored did you would you agree not senator yes Sir. Three other questions. Red centre Payton to along the same lines as Senator Hester out I mean the federal government in the US constitution requires a plurality of the State. To adopt a constitutional amendment is that not correct. Hello strictest. I think I actually on. It's a supermajority yes so I mean how it would be different than for the state to give the counties the same respect that the federal government gives the state. Your. I mean I think I like where you're going with the the the question but obviously the federal constitution in the state constitution or. At two different animals and so I'm not entirely sure that they're it exactly similar but but yes the the federal constitution is a higher bar and a higher threshold three two thirds of Congress has to refer out something and then three fourths of the states have to assure him and I understand ratify it I'm just trying to simplify things because I'm simple minded. But here the legislative process. we go through bill drafting. Committees it's not just a matter of a vote. No matter of molding the legislation in a way to garner support enough to meet the mark when we hit the vote the vote and I do think that this requirement for a broader number counties to be involved. My facilitate that process of Molding the proposal in a way that has broad based support across the state rather than just a title that everybody likes. Well it certainly has the opportunity to Need more buy in from a larger group of of folks that are across the state and in. Note diverse areas of the state that might not all have exactly similar ways of thinking about things so similar to a legislative process that you're referring to we have a representative Republic and this gives more representation to a wider group of people who are going to. Ultimately have to live under the the the changes in whatever the constitution or the referred referred ballot initiative might be that would put on them so yes I think more buying is good across the state from everybody thank you thank you Mr. Senator Tucker. Mr couple questions attended as the the collective **** one is current law fifteen counties this proposal takes it from fifteen to fifty. The big jump I'm just curious for your thought processes that. So Obviously the constitution that you're referring to it says that shall be from at least fifteen counties and so since. Representive Underwood stated that sets a floor not a ceiling We debated going to you know various numbers but two thirds is the similar number that are R. U. S. Congress has to have to refer out an amendment to the voters for ratification two thirds gives a wide by and from people from across. Rule areas of the state If if if you'd be more supportive of a simple majority than than we might consider that if this doesn't go through a two thirds but I thank two thirds is. Good good number fifty yeah and to end this time uh so does not question that can circulate this with colleagues and just try to kind of but what number do you thanks appropriate that was kind of like it the consistent feedback that I received. Okay. My other question we were talking about really our entire discussions this number of counties that you have to to go to but there there's also another point to the bill in its state constitution. If it's going to be a ballot initiative that requires a percent of the voters from the last election if it's constitutional amendment requires ten percent and then when you go down to the number counties it says not less than one half of the designated percentage of the electors of such county and the bill also changes that from from one half and it moves it up to three. Yes yes that so. So at to your point yes the the percentage overall statewide of the total number of signatures you know that's set in the constitution is a hard and fast eight percent the legal voters may propose low ten percent for constitutional amendment. And so that number doesn't change and can't be changed by law it's it would take constitutional amendment in order to do so however since the constitution sets a floor of at least fifteen counties and then to your point and I'd had it circled here somewhere but I can't it's not less than one half not less than one half again the same point is true and not less than means it can be more than and so I understand fifty percent R. one half this makes it three force of a percent right I I understand all that my question is just why would why raise that number what does that accomplish additionally more by and within the local counties. With and so you not you not only want to expand the number of counties from fifteen to fifty within each individual County you want more Brian as well absolutely right. Okay thank you. Just a little bit of a. The what else I know there's a lot of money has. But as our constitution states. You have at least fifteen counties. What if somebody comes in with their signatures. Yes. You say you twenty counties. And have. Under our constitution they've met their threshold. And we legislative higher than the threshold for. What if that happened. Yes so again let's the constitution sets the floor so we have essentially raise that floor which I believe that we have the ability to do and so they would have to meet the higher threshold and get that more more that bind across the state so if if you get signatures and you mean that those thresholds and you'll be fine. Thank you twenty counties obviously that would meet the meet the requirements the Senate floor. And we have set as stated in the bill on page two a minimal. That's two floors. Well they they would have to meet. Both constitutional aspect and then this would be statutory and statutory provisions as well so just like with any other law that we pass Whether it's qualifications for signature gatherers or various other things those statutory provisions if if there's something that is contrary to the constitution obviously that'll probably be challenged and a court might decide differently but this if it becomes law will be the law and the have to by law. Six so we're Brown in our close by the constitution of the state of Arkansas on this constitution. That states. If we set a law. That is not in line with our constitution I mean it's it's in line because a minimum or at least fifteen counties would be represented. But we of settle all that makes the minimum higher than the constitution. Because it says minimum arsenal's minimum that says at least. Well we we debate a lot of things in. In this bill form statutes all day long on various things they're not actually specifically laid out in the constitution one way or another because we have the authority to do so granted by the constitution as the elected representatives of the state and so we debate those things and once you have enough support by and it goes through the legislative process And becomes law then that is binding until it's either changed modified rebuilder or struck down by a court in the future so they would have to meet both thresholds not just. This one announces contrary to any provision within the current constitution right and and your point which I think you can as far as like to clarify. I think this is consistent with with some Hollings we have from the state Supreme Court also your spring court about floors that set the constitution so it says at least fifteen counties were not if we were to lower it from below fifteen counties I think that would not be appropriate because the cost of services has to be at least fifteen counties but in this situation we're not doing that we're raising that to the minimum of fifteen counties which I think is consistent with our constitution provision there. Thank you totally want my areas to have a voice in this and they're not wrong normally come to council of sixteen thousand and that number of voters to find that I appreciate that the your any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have We have three send up to speak against the S. Missy orphan. Misty orphans. And to the. And Ross Nolan they're from the same organization. Please introduce yourself and and who represent and you're welcome to. Well good afternoon Mr chairman members of the committee thanks for allowing us to be here I am miss your fan I'm the executive director of common ground Arkansas from Steven. I thank you for recognizing as at the same time today Pritchett Ross NO one an attorney representing common ground. So one of the main pillars of common ground is protection of the powers granted to the people under the constitution of the state of Arkansas which is the people's contract with their elected leaders who are of course you guys but this bill attempts you as noted change the Arkansas constitution so it Senator Tucker read section five article one of the constitution and I'll just reiterate that it says that the people reserve to themselves the power to propose legislative measures laws and amendments to the constitution and to an act or reject the same at the polls independent of the General Assembly. This bill attempts to change that language right so a layman's terms it says that only the people through the ballot box are allowed to make these types of amendments and changes but it tends to do that by statute here in the General Assembly thereby circumventing the constitutional requirement that the people make the choice that is before you today. Our constitution clearly lays out the number of counties that signatures have to come from and the percentage that people have to get in each of those counties but this bill raises both of those right and we talked a lot about floors and ceilings well the constitution sets a floor and this sets a new floor it is a conflict is a contradiction and it is confusing to people who want to you know use our constitutional rights. And this isn't the first time that the General Assembly has tried to change this part of the constitution and attempt to change this exact language was referred to the people by the General Assembly and it appeared on the ballot in twenty twenty twenty is issue three where was rejected by the people with fifty six percent of the people voting against we've already had this discussion and the voters of Arkansas have already said that they do not want to do this. This legislative body showed through that passed action that it knows that this is supposed to be referred to the people you already did it if you thought that you could do it by statute then you would have done it then you would not have referred it to the people in twenty twenty. Now I've heard it said by members of the Senate several times that the constitutionality of the bills the past isn't really your concern. But it protecting taxpayer dollars is your concern and so is the constitutionality of the bills that you pass this bill if passed will not stand it is blatantly unconstitutional and it will be struck down but not before the people of Arkansas have spent. Pointless money defending a case it's not going to stand and that money is money that could be going to fund education reform could be going to build a new state crime lab that we so desperately need it could be going to increase tax cuts which are all things that we have common ground support so I would ask that you uphold the constitution that you took an oath to the respect the power of the people that it's granted to them to the constitution and you protect the hard earned dollars of Arkansas workers and the taxes that we pay by voting against this bill. I am one other thing you know I don't know that I'm really against a lot of the provisions in this bill I don't think that it's really changes the number of signatures that have to be a that we have to get that much more but I do think this is something that should be referred to the people because it is in direct conflict with the constitution of the state of Arkansas so I'll close in true common ground fashion by saying that no matter how you vote I do recognize that you guys are attempting to represent the best interests of your constituents you may have other pressing reasons for voting one way or another and we don't hold that against you and we're always happy to talk with you about this issue moving forward or any other as well so thank you. Thank you get recognized sure person but. Thank you again for recognized me I'm going to provide some complimentary testimony but the questions that Senator Tucker vast and I miss these testimony as specifically as to why we are coming for you to say that these provisions are unconstitutional but there are three factual issues in this bill that are unconstitutional first the increase the fifteen counties two fifty counts an increase of the percentage of the electors from those counties from fifty percent to seventy five percent and finally the third reason is the cumulative impacts that those will have specifically that it is unclear from this bill and without a further analysis how many signatures will actually now be required so it. Leave those factual issues lead to to constitutional issues the first is just that this area has been occupied preempted by the constitution is not subject to change by the legislature and the second is the unwarranted restrictions prohibited serve mainly to go back and quickly speak as to the fifteen account the language there says that at least fifteen counties I'll say that that is a discretion that is given to the people especially when you read this I in conjunction with unwarranted restrictions prohibited that flexibility to do more than fifteen counties belongs to the people I am not shall not be interfered with it does not say. As many statutes are stacked constitutional provisions to that the number of counties will be determined by the legislature that was the intent or the meaning this constitutional provision very well could have set fifteen counties at a minimum or a number to be determined by the legislature in then I wouldn't be sitting here saying you do not have the power to increase that number but that's not what it says that powers not vested to this body it's put in the constitution Senate fifteen any discretion to go beyond that is the flexibility that belongs to the people of the State when they're exercising their power to petition their government I the second and third matters pulling together and this is something that I really I hope you will stop and consider at for further study and that's if we increase the percentage of designated electors that are required from fifty percent to seventy five percent while also increasing the number of counties. Two fifty from fifteen it is unclear and we've we've sat down and started trying to look at the numbers from counties in putting combinations together on how many electors that would actually mean that you would have to get because the sponsor of the bill just a moment ago stated that the number of signatories required cannot be changed well it may not be expressly change in this bill but there's not been enough analysis to determine. If it by implication or unintended consequences is in fact increasing the number total number of electors that would be required to be that ten percent eight percent or six percent depending on whether it's a initiated act constitutional amendment referendum so without an answer to that question I suggest this body this bill should not go forward without further analysis of the conflicts or or unintended consequences of just exactly how many signatures would be required when you go from fifty percent to seventy percent of the dept seventy five percent of designated electors when you go from fifteen counties to fifty counties it may very well be more than the number required by the constitution but this is been moving for quickly and that's something that I think we must ask answer I the next thing wanna addresses without a lot of talk about As comparing this to the I have a federal constitution I counties are not states federal constitution is not state constitution but I do want to point out and argue that the changes were making here would be just like if the United States Congress in the bill I took the requirements for its super majority of two thirds to three fourths or took the number of states in a in a Act are requiring a constitutional amendment from three fourths two hundred percent I'll buy Act as opposed constitutional amendment we would we would shy away from an understand implicitly that those acts would be unconstitutional so again while I think the state versus federal constitution is back comparison I think we can also understand that you can't alter than supermajority required by the legislature excuse me United States Congress or the number of states to pass just but that is exactly what this bill tries to do is alter our constitution through an amendment to statutory law which of course is not allowed and then finally I was having a. Our time hearing the case I a moment ago but was that a twenty twenty case involving the the. Qualifications for paid canvassers and their background checks. As I want to make clear that that is something that isn't statutory law is not particularly addressed by article five section one here that's face those the matters pertaining to the number of counties in the percentage of the electors are directly addressed in the constitution. So I was it was not until it was a twenty twenty case. I don't think it was a case addressing that issue I have a hard time hearing the. I don't know what here was from but but the point of the case I don't think was about this process it was just about a constitutional floor that can be read that with my understanding of the explanation. Well the point remains the same the number of counties the percentages are directly addressed five. In article five section one or as many of the other things that the legislature can address or can change are not in the constitution when it comes to how we engage in these initiated act I thank you for your time of course questions. In the course. The powers not listed by. The constitution is up to the. Representatives themselves and the people. And the constitution you know section five article one. It says at least fifteen counties it does not say at least fifteen counties and not more than fifteen counties is that correct. Correct all right that's the answer that yes or no. And. In that. If we use our powers. To say. Not more than. Fifty. Is that not appropriate for the people believe it's inappropriate because you're going to run off ballot the unwarranted restrictions prohibited Clause in this that constitutional provision which says you cannot interfere with freedom the people of character test again I believe that at least fifteen items at the discretion of the people who are petitioning they may go beyond fifteen if that's what they need to make sure that they get their initiative on the ballot but that it does not say that the Legislature may set a different number which is something we do see quite often statute statutory or constitutional law the legislature has the power to set this number it's not like this. Mr chairman at that and I mean when this language the attempt was made to change this to raise the number of counties before it was done as a legislatively referred amendment and not trying you know to do statutorily it's we're doing here. Three other questions. C. nine thank you for your testimony. The we have one more against and it's remote Rebecca Zimmerman. Introduce yourself and who you're with us and you are recognized. Hello thank you chair and members of the committee I'm Rebecca is there man I work at Arkansas advocates for children families and we oppose Senate bill two sixty and urge the committee members to please vote against it Arkansas state motto is that people rule but this bill does not live up to that value for a century now citizens Arkansas I have had the right to put measures on the ballot on issues impacting their communities is a complicated and thorough process that ensures integrity and for the past two elections Arkansas voters have rejected attempts by the legislature to make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to put citizen initiate acts on the ballot this bill subverts the will of the voters by. Putting in place a law that they rejected in twenty twenty on issue three this bill is actually more difficult in the bill that they would have voted against the bill only if this bill passes only most well funded campaigns will be able to run ballot initiatives in Arkansas and meet these higher quote as all but shutting out the average citizen from being able to put issue that they care about on the ballot so would you urge the committee members to please vote against. Three questions from committee. Seeing none thank you miss Simmons thank you. Three discussion from the Committee. This is discussion within us okay. Thank you Mr chairman for I just wanna say for the record I know we did on the floor but happy birthday to the to the Committee chairman. Wearing your committee we are wish you Happy Birthday thank you just don't seem to me again. I'll be singing in the Mike Holcomb Brownsea that so I really have to concerns about this piece of legislation one is constitutional one is philosophical constitutional standpoint it seems claim to me at least that this bill violates the state constitution it's just as They just laid out. It seems clear to me that when you say that the the petition has to be from at least fifteen counties that's for the people getting the petition's they can get to sixteen seventeen twenty twenty five counties if they want that's not for the legislature change if if it were for the legislature to change that I would say that there are plenty of amendments to the to the state constitution or original provisions the state constitution that say this can be amended with a two thirds vote of the state legislature that's not what this says if that's what the drafters intended they would have included that in this provision by the same token not less than one half of the designated percentage of the electors of such county all that means is that if you need five if that designated percentage is five thousand votes it mean you have to stop at five thousand you can go to five thousand one or fifty five hundred or six thousand you can keep going to get as many as you want from a particular county so long as you have fifteen different counties that's up to the people gathering the petition again if that were able to be changed by the legislature the provision would say that but it doesn't say that and so I I I'll I'll read the case that representive Underwood side of course I have a record to this point but based on the language in this article five section one of the state constitution this is a plan this plainly conflicts with the state constitutional Westinghouse's from my standpoint even beyond the constitutional concern however. I have a philosophical problem with this the model of the State of Arkansas's regnant populace which is Latin for the people rule and you know we hear a lot of conversation with these types of proposals about saying we're trying to keep out of state interests. At from changing our state constitution. This will not prevent that from happening. There will still be. Initiated axe and proposed constitutional amendments that are initiated by the people. Right now it does take a lot of money to to put an issue on the ballot but at if this passes and for some reason if it doesn't go straight down a court which I can't see not happening but if this were the law only the biggest money only the biggest money will be able to come in and influence initiated action and and it says an initiated constitutional amendments so it's actually. In my judgment clamping out the voices of the people because all only the huge dollars are going to be able to do it and it shifts the balance of power that's established plainly in this constitution between the legislature and the people. If if we if we pass this bill in order to become law the motto of the state of Arkansas regnant populace will lose quite a bit of its meaning in my opinion so this is taking power away from the people to check on the out of I'm in the out of state interests for ballot initiatives whether it's an initiated after constitutional amendment or for an out of state lobbying group that comes in and tries to pass something is the vote. You don't have the vote at the bill filing level just like you don't have the vote at the petition gathering level on it on initiated act or a constitutional amendment that is getting in on the ballot and putting it to the vote the vote is for the people of Arkansas and all seventy five counties participate that that's the check on the out of state influence just like to check on the out of state employee to the state capitals the vote of the legislature so those are two different processes and work we're conflating the two I think we're dampening the voice of the people of Arkansas right to put. Issues on the ballot the people care about only the biggest money will be able to do it and it's plainly on unconstitutional from my standpoint so I'll be voting no. New and Senator Hester I appreciate you guys bring a bill that really protects of the average person that that the the voter in Arkansas this this Springs integrity protect the people of Arkansas is vote makes it harder on big out of state billionaires Committee continued by our constitution thank you for a listening and hearing that the the people of Arkansas. Senator Payton thank you Mr and I are truly believe in the people rule and and they have the opportunity to replace us every two years or every four years sometimes I haven't enjoyed a four year term yet but You know I'm in support of the initiative right now that would. Create a recall process for the people recall their elected officials if they want to. I don't think if you look back a hundred and fifty years when our founders put a fifteen County. The minimum in the constitution. And they were traveling by horse and buggy and I hear some of the representatives were walking to Little Rock took weeks to get here. A I think they thought they were set a pretty high hurdle at fifteen counties of this past couple of election cycles as I pumped gas. In hired guns walked around the gestation asking people if they want to sign a petition for this or that. Those people didn't read the that law that they were signing a petition to put it on the ballot. And some of them said no get out my face and others of them signed it in order to quit being harassed but the bottom line is when people send me here they expect me to read the bill expect me to research the legislation and the process that we go through down here means that more than one person or more than a handful we're gonna have input on the legislation. But for some billionaire somewhere to sit down with his lawyer and draw up legislation that they prefer. And then put a title on it they know is popular and then hire. People to stand outside sporting events and go around the gas stations. I mean I think that's a pretty low bar and I think it's all much lower bar than our founders received when they said fifteen counties so I to appreciate legislation I'll be voting for thank you. Thank you Sir Payton the electors made reference to the US Congress sending the ball bar higher. In lead in statute to amend the constitution. How that would be perceived by the people. I think that would be perceived by the people as securing your constitution. And. The I don't see the Congress making it harder to amend the constitution. But I think I'm willing to. Then this body to make it harder to amend our constitution has been been amended so many times. And the. I appreciate the the effort in S. and. And thank you members. And is there any other discussion. Seeing none you want to close your bill. A. Thank you Mr chair. Johnson. Okay I think we've heard all the discussion and I won't belabor this I'll just make a motion to pass. Motion by Senator Dotson second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye I. All as as amended. All All opposed Like sign. The thank you senator you've passed your bill. Thank you the Committee.