State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Bills seventeen ninety three representatives got this concurrent Senate amendment you're recognized to run your Amendment good morning colleagues and colleagues this is just the amendment that we promised we would make on the House for remaining on the Senate side and so today were before you to just concur that amendment. I would appreciate it thank you. Any questions from committee members represented well you're recognized for a question you have a question right over here representative Scott. I have a question right over here thank you Mr so would you say this bill is a good equal bill now. I think this bill Meeks equity that we were trying to meet for both men and women in our prison systems by offering mammograms and prostate to give me a political answer can you give me a yes or no is this bill it good for bill now. Thank you for that ma'am if the gestion I think it's a good equal bills now thank you. Members. The representative recognized for a question. Actually it's a motion to adopt the amendment okay I have a motion to adopt representatives calendar year ready to close yes Sir. God is closed. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no graduation she developed thank you thank you. Your. Next item on today's agenda will be announced bill sixteen fifteen concurrent Senate amendment representative Ladyman. When you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. Of committee this bill was sent over to the Senate I agreed to put an amendment on over in the Senate to eliminate the requirement of having a polling site in all small towns of second class cities of made that commitment to the state of election commissioners so that's all is does it adds that amendment that I promised. So. Any questions from committee members. K. nine representative letterman you're recognized clothes close and make a motion to pass record representative related men's clothes got a motion for a do pass any discussion on the motion. J. none all in favor say aye aye All opposed say no graduations passed thank you Committee. All right Senate bill six ninety three. Represent your larger run that person at your Hickey. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized Senate bill six ninety three. Thank you Mr chair as you guys well know we've been working all session on EBD with executive ale see subcommittee. We are really close to hiring a consultant of today we will meet and narrow those consultants down to two and move forward we're looking at roughly about a hundred million dollar shortfall for next FY this year we're going to come out almost equal thanks to about twenty million dollars that the Department of it had to throw in on the teachers and care insurance side. Back in twenty thirteen I was here sad to say I've been here this long but we fixed all of this with a lot of tough decisions in twenty eighteen we saw this board come in they enrich these plans and we slowly saw this thing dropped back into the hundreds of millions of dollars deficit that we fixed and twenty eight point twenty thirteen so what we don't want to do is to put a bunch of money into the system with the same board there that will put us back in the same shape that we just recovered from so all this bill does is takes that board out sets it over into the finance board just for temporary set six to eight months into this consultor port comes back and we can form a new representation board that honestly represents the teachers state employees and retirees on a board that can set their fees and and things going forward one thing I want you to remember is is we've heard over the last two weeks since is bill been filed is that they're messing with our retirement they're doing this there is nothing in this bill that touches in the retirement for any state employee or any teacher this is solely the insurance plans and this solely sets that border zero the same board that is put us to millions of dollars in the hole two times so with that Mr I'd be glad to take any questions. Committee members. Say no no one signed up to speak for against the bill. Well you're recognized close review I'm close I make a motion to pass Wardlaw is closing but a motion of the passion the discussion on the motion. You saying none all in favor say aye. Opposed say no graduation your bill is passed thank you Mr. By understanding on the next bill Senate bill three forty we're waiting on an amendment is that correct do you have an amendment we do have. Should be a man but we don't have a copy of it to my understanding that there may be some confusing it was the amendment those provided this morning so the one that represent and those. We first got it we have some concern that it wasn't exactly right but talk to the bill drafted its we're going to check. Mr chairman I may have to take off because of another bill another committee that does not going to be meeting a whole lot longer but but I'll call started represented those here who can who can finish whenever you're ready. Okay you're recognized present your members so what this amendment does is this takes what is currently and in the executive order and it and it puts it in do not codified temporary language with the with the intent for it to run out when the executive order ends with emergency ends and the intent of that is to make it where everything that we've notarized previously would it be taken outside of being the able to be challenged because if the question is of the governor didn't have statutory authority to do the executive order this would cover that by saying there is statutory there this is me admitting that my defeat still trying to get three forty done but at least giving the attorneys who wanted represent pencils bill ability to say everything that they've done is legitimized so having said that I'm happy to answer any questions on the amendment. Committee members. Motion represented Wardlaw Whitaker you motion. Motion to adopt the amendment. Well. I have a motion to adopt the amendment. In discussion on the motion. None all in favor say aye. All opposed say no member has been adopted. I think with this I think now the amendment is or the bill Senate bill three forty is as a as agreed to I don't know that there's any opposition to it and this codifies the secretary of state's language the one that has the the more more complex version of remote notary and at least we'll leave out with the ability to do something for those folks who want to use. Any questions from committee members. Hi everyone signed up to speak for against the bill. No one signed up to speak for against the bill no questions from committee members Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Are you ready to close the I am closing protective clothes representative. It will always make a motion. I do pass as amended any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Regulations your members thank you committee I appreciate you guys okay. SJR eighteen Senator Clark. Representative right you're gonna of protege are eighteen percent to Clark. Yes Sir okay you're recognized. Okay thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee this is just a joint resolution and if if it's passed by both the house and the Senate would encourage are concessional delegation and the members of Congress to. Pursue a amendment to the United States constitution that would set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine and so there's a lot more that could be said about that but I know you all belong agenda so I'll take any questions if there are any. Any questions from committee members. No one signed up to speak for against the bill. Okay no questions are committee members represent you well you're recognized because we bill okay Adam close thank you represent your values close what's the pleasure of the Committee I have a motion of do pass any discussion on the motion. Shea none all in favor say aye All opposed say no regulate regulations shall a thing is based thank you correct thank you. Next item on today's agenda. The Senate bill six seventy one senator Hammer. Senator Hendren recognized president Senate bill six seventy one thank you Mr members of the committee up six seventy one is in response to an effort that actually started with representatives back last session he filed the legislation that required that the department sure transformation services would file report identified savings of that report was filed and as a result of that there was a lack audit request of that a particular bill or that particular results of there were some questions as to the actual savings conflicting between like audit's report and the report that was given to us this bill is in response to that I have talked representative back to incorporate his cooperation input on it and uh Frank Gehry what's the like auditors here of what I did was work with them in order to align the language in the bill to be consistent with what we're used to dealing with in the budgeting process so the terms of the same and it also establishes a definition what savings is because that was one of the points of disagreement with that report was what defines saving so we've identified that in this bill to make sure that we all agree that this is what savings really is and that's the hundred to fifty thousand foot view and Mr airy can come the table to share you know or committee has any questions beyond that. Wardlaw you're recognized for a question. So represent Hammer we spent the last year and a half hearing about savings and now that you're defining that actual savings what happens with the department's tell us they have savings but they do not meet your definition I think that's where we step opens legislative branch and exercise the authority of the person making adjustments in the appropriation process all. Recognized would you say over the last year and a half they met your definition of savings. this members personal opinion no thank you. Committee members. The one signed up to speak for against the bill senator Hammer you're ready because we bill I thank of explain the merits of the bill they would put us in a position of legislative branch to have a clear understanding moving forward water under the bridge but this is in reaction that I appreciate a good vote. Senator Hammer is close to the bill I have a motion representative Becky have a motion. I have a motion of no passionate discussion on the motion. Hey none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Regulations hamper your bill is passed thank you present your next couple bills may generate several questions if you don't mind we have some folks I probably need to get into the table and get out it's got other committee meetings and because those may take a little longer so what without any objections committee members at this time will move to Senate bill six twenty seven senator garner you would just have a seat in the table you're recognized present to your senate bill. I thank the chairman members. One thing we've learned to this session is that there's plenty divisive subjects that we need to talk about that are real substantial issues we understand that today's culture there's some ideas and concepts we need to put through kind of to diversity teach understanding and teach real substituting just happen in Arkansas. But at the same time as replacing bad history we can't replace with worse history we as were pacing moving away from divisive subjects we can't replace or more divisive subjects what this bill does is prohibited the state of Arkansas within his government organization from teaching divisive concepts such as one race is inherently better together that this country's fundamentally and and and soundly races things like that should not be told within our state government doesn't mean we can't teach about diversity that doesn't mean we can't talk about controversial real topics but it keeps that from happening it moves in the right direction doesn't cover schools doesn't cover split will subdivisions like cities and there's other exemption we had defining specifically where these entities will have to fall this but that'll take any questions. Any questions from committee members. No one signed up to speak for against the bill. Senator garner you're ready to close I am close thanks Sir senator garner close with the bill what's pleasure of the Committee. Representive Ladyman is made a motion of a do pass any discussion on the motion. Say none all in favor including all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Regulations a bill is passed. By moving but scrutiny committee members will be back to the top of the agenda of say representative Gazaway is here represent you would just have a seat at the other table committee members will go back access to up to the top the agenda near us in the joint resolution. Fourteen if you know we are the resolution on this the other day and now represent you Gazaway will present the bill. Thank you Mr chairman. Our members as J. R. fourteen is many of you know is the Arkansas religious freedom Amendment this is the proposed constitutional amendment to the Arkansas constitution I presented essentially a house version of this when we went to the constitutional amendments earlier in the year so some of you may recall from that presentation basically what the bill does OR what they got a second call on the bill but it course to be a proposed amendment many of you probably recall what the proposed amendment does which is to enshrine in the Arkansas constitution the protections in the liberties that we believe that were reported afforded for the free exercise of religion in this country and in this state and specifically that government cannot burden the free exercise of one's religion without demonstrating that there is a compelling governmental interest to do so and that that compelling governmental interest has been narrowly tailored to achieve that specific purpose again which must be a compelling purpose and so it will enshrine that standard in the Arkansas constitution in the event that a government attempts to place restrictions on religious liberty and. S. that's. In a nutshell what the bill or what the the proposed amendment seeks to do this is course comes from the Senate Senator Rapert file this in the Senate and we passed the enabling legislation. On Thursday I believe it was as to allow us to consider this is the third proposed constitutional amendment that will be referred to the people I believe that enjoyed broad support on on the ballot and so with that I'm happy to entertain any questions representative to the number you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair of represent Gazaway eight. I mean all obviously I appreciate the intent of anything that promotes religious freedom but could you explain. Why are. You feel that this is necessary given that it seems to me to be a bit redundant and that could mentions in the amendment itself the our state constitution second amendment and others just touch on or why we've built this is necessary to amend our constitution to add. Something redundant to. Well that's a good question and I don't know that I would. I would use the word redundant but I understand your point. The thought is is that court's change over time. Opinions of those courts change over time. And we want to make sure that while we're in a position to do so that we put the strongest language possible in our state constitution to ensure that the freedoms that we currently enjoy and expect with regard to the ability to exercise briefly exercised our religion and religious freedoms it's very clearly protected in the state constitution you see things that have come from the federal level and again I'm not I'm not sure that this will stop federal over reach necessarily but it is important that we make a strong statement in our state constitution you may say that we may see thank things at the local level of attempts to exercise free exercise of religion and of course if we have in our state constitution it would be a strong barrier to those types of infringements but you know when you look at it today where we stand in Arkansas I mean to your point I think we're in a pretty good place but I want you to think about Arkansas in thirty years. Thank Arkansas is gonna look like it looks today in thirty years. You might you would probably want those protections in your state constitution. Follow follow up yes Sir thank you Mr so. As an attorney in your you're a sharp attorney I allow respect for you do you do you feel like that this amendment has stronger language in it that our second amendment the state constitution. So I think that these things are all interpreted and have been interpreted again I think that we enjoy religious freedom today. Again. I think the important point is that we want to make sure that whatever happens in the future that we have that very strong statement in our state constitution I'm not saying that it's stronger necessarily then the interpretations of that we have today on existing law but I think that their regular attempts whether that's at the federal level or whether that may come from the local level to and French on religious freedom and to the extent that that happens we want strong language in the constitution. Thank you thank you Mr. Representative ready because you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr represent Gazaway Women turning myself up fairly familiar with the current standard for religious. Actions by state actors. As being a prohibiting those that substantially burden. Religious freedom. Mrs. Strong case law out there it's not probably going to change anytime soon I noticed in this draft there is no the words of Central magically disappears. And as an attorney with some. Experience and expertise in constitutional law. It sets assent you know my opinion being. Let us in a weaker position if this were to be challenged under the first amendment of the United States constitution where the courts would ban use the stronger language and say Arkansas has adopted a standard that is not constitutional. What's your response to that. So I understand your point and you're correct and I actually I think this also really answers representative Miller's question a little more accurately which is the current standard. It is my understanding of course is that. There has to be a substantial burden. in order for the government that the government imposes a substantial burden upon religion in the courts are likely to strike that down what this says is if the government you're correct the word substantial is not in this bill so if the government imposes a burden. On religion so this would be a stronger protection for religious freedom then if the government has to show their or if the if the person who for whom. They believe their religious freedom has been imposed upon has to show that there's a substantial is substantially burden their religious freedom in this case they would only have to show that it burdens so in that regard I think that this is a stronger protection for religious freedom is it different than the current standard is that the court uses to your point yes is it a stronger protection in my opinion yes how might that be interpreted by the United States Supreme Court if it were to go up on appeal in a clearly Arkansas as a sovereign state this is the way that we have defined the way that the state can burden religion in the state of Arkansas I don't understand that the federal government may use a little bit different test but I will also tell you that this is the same language that is used in the Alabama state constitution they struck the word substantial when they wrote this almost verbatim language in the Alabama constitution and that's been in the Alabama constitution I believe for about fourteen years and there's not been any any challenges to that on the federal level at this point. So you know alternately if there were challenges the federal level they're gonna be issues of sovereignty and the way that the state can define how religious freedom can be burdened in it in this state And so I think that you know that's just gonna be a question for the courts but if we can provide stronger protection than what's available to federal level which I believe this does I think Mostar Kansans would want that but the last thing I would notice is this still would require a compelling governmental interest to be the government still have to show that they have a compelling governmental interest and so for many of the things that you may think not be allowed under this because any burden would be enough to strike down the government action. I believe under that compelling governmental interest as the government may still be able to justify many of the restrictions that you may have in mind so you know what more I can't tell you what the courts would do but that's kinda how I see it planned out. What Mister recognized. So just to clarify under this drafting. Any burden no matter how slight would be cause of action for a person Arkansas to say the government has infringed on my religious liberty. It removes the word substantial not help you well I think of a entitled respond to that how the courts will interpret that I can't be sure it does clearly remove the word substantial provides more protection for religious freedom but again the government I would still have to show a compelling governmental interest and if they can do that and in many cases over time it's been proven that they have been able to do that the courts have upheld those restrictions so I'm not sure that symptomatic departure but I think it's one that must or cans would welcome to protect their religious freedom. Well you're recognized for a question thank you Mr president Gazaway you kind of hit on it but really walk me through page three section four and walk me through. How the works because what it looks like here is the government could come up with a compelling government interest and then they could infringe on my religious freedom so what me through how that's going to work and how you see that functioning in real life. That's a good question and that's the test that we have today. that's what the government has to show today if they it Attempt to impose restrictions on religious freedom they have to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest and so you can look at things like you know restrictions have been placed upon presenters when you know when they attempted to use of arguments that religious freedom to be able to say that they don't have to engage in certain conduct in other words it violates my religion after you to put me in prison or people who might say that it biolase my religion to have to pay income taxes the other people they can come up with any type of thing but the government if they can demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest again which is the current test then the court cannot pull those restrictions so for instance the government has a compelling governmental interest to raise money through the imposition of taxes you can't tell the government as much as you may want to try that it violates my religion to pay taxes. The government has a compelling governmental interest to raise money through taxation for the general welfare and there's any number of those examples over time where they've been challenge is made and the government has been able to demonstrate those compelling governmental interest. The representative may you're recognized for a question. Okay we'll have to or did you have follow the okay the representative Payton recognized for a question. Thank you Mr and Senator Wardlaw just pretty much as my question about this compelling governmental interest. Is that phrase already in the constitution in regards to to how will you measure this or is that something that we're putting in there fresh and new. So it's not currently in the constitution but it is in the case law that is the test that the court currently uses when they examined restrictions or or impositions upon a person's religious freedom number one the first thing that the government has to establish is that there is a compelling governmental interest to impose this restriction and then the government has to show that that compelling governmental interest has been narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose and that's what we call the strict scrutiny standard which is what the courts currently apply any time the government tries to impose a restriction on religious freedom and so this simply puts into the constitution that test. That the courts already used to analyze this that follow up. Sorry recognized and I'm I suspected as much I was trying to hurry up and pull up the constitution to find out that was right So you talked at the beginning about it being important that we get this in the constitution because of. Future records and opinions and and you know how things may change over time. But basically. The constitution doesn't doesn't currently. Specifically say that the compelling governmental interest should be an excuse so we would be putting that in there for the first time. That's true but one thing that I think it's important to recognize is the different standards of scrutiny that the courts use when they look at imposing restrictions on freedom or liberty so the most basic one that's used in the vast majority of cases is the rational basis test does the can the government demonstrate that they have a rational basis to impose this restriction if so then it stands. S. the rational basis test then you have an intermediate level of scrutiny that the court shoes basically like a clear and convincing type standard and then you have the highest level of scrutiny that the courts use and whether or not they can impose a restriction on a fundamental right and that is the strict scrutiny standard where the government not not has to demonstrate that they just have a rational basis for doing whatever it is that they want to do but they have to demonstrate that they have a compelling governmental interest and that that compelling governmental compelling governmental interest has been narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose and so if they can't meet either one of those tests. Then that restriction or that imposition on that fundamental right can't stand and so we're basically putting in the constitution the highest level of scrutiny to the courts use. And considering impositions upon our civil liberties and that would be a good thing because if the courts were to reverse course I think this is a figure if the course were reversed course on religious freedom they wouldn't go up and that they go down from that. They just said that all they have to do to impose upon your religious freedom was a demonstrate that they had a rational basis to do so. If that's all they have to show they could impose upon your religious freedom at any time now historically that's not been the test that's been used in precedent. But it but courts change opinions change and so again I ask you. You know what Arkansas looks like today we know what the test is today what you think Arkansas is going to look like in thirty years rethink the country's gonna look like in thirty years. I have a feeling it's not going to look like it does today. And I appreciate if I have one more follow you're recognized I appreciate what you're saying there and it does it makes a very good argument I guess the way what I'm struggling with is I currently see the constitution is as having no excuse. And we have interpreted it I have a little a little excuse with a compelling governmental interest your concern is that that pendulum would move further over here my concern is we're codifying word that which in my opinion. Is is watering down where the constitution is that but I'm struggling with that I think you make a good case for why we should do it so can you help me with that at all. Well historically over time that's been the test that has been used in its functioned well so I mean I understand if you read the plain language of the first amendment to the US constitution for instance or you read the plain language of what's in the Arkansas constitution it's not going to say anything about a compelling governmental interest that's not gonna be found in the plain language of those constitutional provisions but for decades the that's how the courts have interpreted when the government attempts to impose restrictions the concern is what if in the future the government says we know that we've always used this compelling governmental interest that has to be narrowly tailored standard but for this we think a rational basis will do. And I I think that's the direction that we could be moving. And for the state of Arkansas we want to say we're not going to very from the very high bar that's been set. In order to impose restrictions upon religion and I think that's really the purpose. Other questions from committee members. Saying no no one signed up to speak for against the bill. DVS ready you're ready to close your joint resolution thank you Mr chairman basically close for the resolution all I would say is that I believe that this would help the jurisprudence in our state to. In strong protections for religious freedom again we have to have an eye for the future you have to make hay while the sun shines sunshine as they say and the sun is shining today I don't know what if the sun is shining twenty years or thirty years or forty years and there may come a day were you wish you had these protections in the Arkansas constitution today's the day will do it I think or whether we can do it I think that this is a measure that would likely be very popular with voters and would be likely to pass and so. with that I'm closed and would appreciate a good vote representative Gazaway has closed what's the pleasure of the Committee representative Ladyman has made a motion for passage or any discussion on the motion. Surely none all in better but we I'm sorry you had a crush on the motion representa Miller I'm sorry yes Sir thank you Mister. Of this is. I really hate this. I'm hello I hated because anytime you have the words religious freedom. My initial reaction is to jump on board. Of I'm all for religious freedom and and what about say is absolutely nothing against represent Gazaway I think he's a fine guy a great representative and a sharp Attorney. But folks I. The way I see this. Is we're doing something. It really doesn't do anything. And. I don't think that's our responsibility does it look good his words paid we're protecting religious freedom. Which I'm all for. I don't know though that this is doing anything. Other than simply reiterating. What's already in the constitution. I had I don't. You know we we both down a lot of stuff in committees. And in our. The inmates to different chambers. Because we felt like their solutions looking for problems. No I don't I don't want. Anyone's religious freedom tampered with I believe that we already have that. And I see this as. Headline grabber an attention getter. That kind of stuff I and and and I'm not comfortable with it and I think we have other. Amendments that actually do stuff that actually help people that we don't have to wait thirty years on to see potential benefits. And for that I'm going to be voting no and I hate it because I know I'm gonna look like a. Of a royal jerk of a conservative Republican. Vote against religious freedom. But I'm just. This is where I'm at on it and so for that I will vote no not as your committee thank you representative Miller is broken on the motion any further discussion on the motion webpages page you're recognized for a question on the motion. Thank you Mr chair just thinking about all of this this past year we have some churches closed. doors was closed I'm not so sure that we don't need something like this to remind the people that we don't have to buckle down to some of those things yes I know that there was a virus and there was all of this but we did see our church is closed so I'm going to vote for it I'm going to yield on the protection thank you. The representative of the discussion on the motion. Say none the motion by representative Ladyman is a do pass all in favor say aye. All opposed say no graduations the bill is passed. Thank Mr chairman thank you thank you next item on today's agenda will go back it will be. Senator Hammer. Committee members will be Senate bill six ninety one. Is your hand out. I am here to have a seat in the table you're recognized president Senate bill six ninety one. Share that handout goes with Senate bill five four eighty five you would rather do you I'm sorry I'd like to do six ninety one first chair allowance a forty five for my last okay you're recognized you used Senate bill six ninety one is that correct yes Sir okay you're right thank you. What this what this thank you Mr members committee what this bill does Kim Hammer state senator district thirty three simply what this bill does is it says that if there is a advertisement that is going to have an elected official and that advertisement is being funded through take taxpayer dollars that it is declared on that advertisement as being paid for or furnished by and requires the state entity county constitutional officer that paid for the advertisement this does not include nor does a sweep up into the discussion what we do whatever we are running political ads for our offices doesn't pick that up at all it just shows that if you're gonna be an ad this got your picture displayed in as an elected official and their taxpayer dollars that are associated with the cost of that ad you have to put that disclaimer on it because I think the public I don't know that those ads are being paid for by taxpayer dollars and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Any questions from committee members. No one signed up to speak for against the bill. Centreman recognized closing your bill thank you Mr thank it's been pretty self explanatory thank you and if there is a complaint that is filed is not a criminal charge it sent to the ethics commission for investigation. And I would be appreciate a good vote Senator Hammer closely bill representative makes did you have. I have a motion representative makes motion bill passed in the discussion on the motion. Hey none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no regulation your Senate bill six ninety one is passed now recognized to present senate bill four eighty five we have a handout. The group. Sir James you're recognized present your bill. Thank you Mr this bill is the bill that takes Monday early voting before election day off of the of privilege time to vote voting is right that's been established through court cases and in the constitution early voting is a privilege this is something that has been attempted by both Democrats and Republicans over the year I think that speaks a volume of messages and that is that uh there has been the realization over the years that Monday prior to election probably should never been put on the privilege when it was originally established and I think that's one of the reasons why there has been attempts over the years to remove it because of the demands are placed on those that are running the election also the potential for mishaps to occur on that day before because of the requirements that are placed upon whether it be the county Clerk or whoever it is the training the election there are opportunities for things to happen maybe intentional we don't know but unintentional for sure such as machines breaking down secretary state having to move machines late on Monday night or early into Tuesday morning and I would just say that over the years both dems and Democrats and Republicans have attempted you know to to remove this that does raise two questions in my mind if there's been bipartisan effort over the years to do this why bipartisan efforts I think it's because both parties at the time realized that there are potential thanks to happen they could disenfranchise somebody's vote because something goes wrong in one county intentional or unintentional some goes right in another county and when you're running a election that involves statewide results such as a Senate race for governor race or anyone the constitutional or even in your local districts such as what we've seen this last time in three house races that I can think of that the vote count was very closed you want to do everything to make sure that you that the the integrity of the vote is counted. you also have to ask the question why only Monday a kind of hit on that already I want to make sure that everybody understands regardless whatever you have heard in the media spread on social media or whatever you've read on a sign that this is only removing the Monday before election day that leaves twelve other days that are privileged early voting and when you look at the number of states in the nation twenty four states allow early voting the other ones do not some states have moved to totally mail out voting and I'm I'm definitely not favor of that so to say that this is disenfranchised in somebody's right to vote I think is a totally inaccurate depiction of what this is intended to do it just to make sure that we have a safe zone between one early voting ends on Saturday afternoon and the biggest day in our nation's history which is election day occurs to make sure that everybody has adequate time so what this bill allows is for those that are running the election to perform checklist of procedures make sure the proper materials are in place machines are inflation up in working order but also to keep from exhausting some of our individuals that are working at the poll because we know that as has been stated that the population of those that are working the poll is aging now I want to tell you and then I'll be glad to take questions Mister chair I serve in a district that represents two counties one of those counties sizzling County it runs like a well oiled machine this is not going to have that big of a bearing on that but as I gave Q. and a copy of a letter there are counties that are experiencing great difficulties I think it's just as important that the votes in a county that is experiencing difficulty is treated with the same level of respect as a county where it's running smooth and there's ample amount of help I know in some counties they have a waiting list of people that want to work on the polls but also known other counties they're struggling to find poll workers because. I've worked twelve long days straight and then we throw that day on before election and then they have to going to work election day shall thank this is just a good practical approach to bring up for discussion what is our been attempted by both parties in the past I think it's time for us to revisit it now and see what the will of the committee is at this time and I'll be glad to take any questions. Any questions from committee members of. Representative dodging you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair Senator I'm not sure as far as the the statute concerning this this is just one section of it but are counties able to not have early voting on the Monday right now is it optional. To my understanding because we looked at that in some states they've actually made it optional but in the delegated down to the local level but in talking to a legal counsel both that work for us as legislators and other legal counsel that would price set up set for a lawsuit because it would create a a disadvantage or disparity by of giving preferential treatment to one county over another by creating that option so that's why it was not in there but my understanding is I'm approaching this law requires it Monday now is is part of the thirteen day early voting privilege thank you thank you. Whitaker you're recognized. Thank you Mister senator in order to relieve this burden on Mondays with any given any thought given is moving it back to Sunday and then you still have Monday off but you'd still keep the total number of early voting days the same. Actually represent Whitaker I'm glad you brought that up there was discussion all around the subject maybe even cut it off at noon on Monday but to align with all the other days and just keep it consistent and keep it from getting confusing I ended up on this but I will tell you I have a bill drafted and ready to file first time around that we would add an additional Saturday when we come back in the next election cycle in order to add that extra day back however I think and and that you know it gets really confusing here down at the end of session I'll just tell you that something like to talk about in the interim is about adding and and it may not be that Sir we may not do we may going to extend seventy hours that we currently have but when you look at the vote count for each one of those thirteen days Monday's vote count came in number eight as far as the number of votes cast it only missed being number nine by thirty nine votes so that tells you. That in some counties yes it may have a high vote count in other counties it doesn't have that and I think that would be a discussion to have in the interim to see if we can bring everybody together see what's best following Mister recognized just to clarify Senator do you ever specifically look at Sunday. No and the reason I didn't look at Sunday other states have done that Sunday is of a day that was low among the twenty four states that did it I did not look at at Sunday I have a personal reason as to why not looking at Sunday I think Sunday's competed for enough and I think that voting is something that's special enough that when you've got twelve other days we could pick another day of the week in and do it another day of week other than Senate but based on data that was exercised at a low count in the other states that are allowing early voting thank you thank you representative Paul you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman thank representative Johnson may have asked my questions but just to confirm you said making this promise of because you said you've got one county that this would affect one that would really and my county a lot of leadership there is is not for this but you said making it permission of. could be an issue legally is that right based on legal counsel I got from our staff from from other attorneys that are proficient in dealing with cases like this in court it was advised not to make it permission even though other states do it just because of legal challenges that could come because it might disenfranchise a voter because you're creating on equal access to the vote to the your to the voting. Okay so you said it other states are doing that making a permissive how long have they been acting in that or is that a new deal that you not is just waiting to be challenged I can answer that I got that information through staff that came from and CLS and BLS the right anyway of and and that's just based on the report that they gave me that some you know that that some stage. Grant that latitude so I don't know if that aligns with their individual state constitution allows them to do that or if it's federal I just felt that that would get a little too complicated and this would be clean simple on a line with everything else. Thank you. The questions from committee members. I am I'm sure like every other committee member I've received several emails with constituents concerned about taking away another day for them to be able to have the opportunity to go vote and you know we ran a lot of election laws is time and I think a lot of folks looking at this is just one more step in that direction how would you ensure that I would answer that I was gonna say this my closing comment but you kind of forced my hand at this time so we got a letter from the county Clerk. That is of an opposite party than I am and that Clark is crying out for help because in her district which is different than the district I represent it has identified some issues one of them being internet access and the weakness of it in particular areas so I guess my question is this would you want to cast a vote in a county where everything is going well and you have the privilege of all the access the internet and to vote centers and to good volunteer polling staff would you want to cast your vote there only to know that because of an issue in another part of the state your vote might not be counted because of a flaw or because it would cast a doubt on the voting process I think our measurement that we need to use is what we do to help those that have the greatest challenges instead of those that have the greatest opportunities and until we get those that have the greatest challenges up to the same level of those that have the greatest opportunities we need to make sure the playing field is level across the field and yes there are clerks that are very vocal for this they're clerks that are expressing great interest you want to have this then there are those that are on the sideline so you don't to my knowledge what you guys not your head tell me something happens since last week I don't know that the the Clerk should come out as a unified because they're divided as far as where they want to stand on this. Representative back you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair and you cover this I just want to be thanks for the reply did you say that Monday the day that we would be eliminating rated nine's arc ten is far as the least number of votes to the numbers that I have it It is currently on one of the sheets one of the data it was number eight as far as the number of votes cast on that date and only missed being ninth by thirty nine folks now in some counties this year yes in five counties it may be consistent there may actually be an uptick okay but across the state and there and I must acknowledge because the watch shall make good educated decision there was an uptick in Monday voting on between two thousand nineteen in two thousand. Of eighteen and twenty there was an uptick on Monday state wide but it varies county to county. For full disclosure okay thank you we've got one two three five people signed up to speak against the bill and senator Hammer if you just make roped in the table first person I have signed up is Lori eleven the sevens. Seventy would just have stated to the table data by yourself. To the Committee and you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Sir hi my name is Laurie Evans. Use me I'm with indivisible Little Rock Central Arkansas we of course are a grassroots advocacy organization we register educate voters and advocate on federal funding right so thank you so much for the opportunity to speak here today on S. the forty eighty five and I'll try to keep it but with all those folks so I think we're all here today for the basically the same reasons are we here to serve our own interests or are we here to serve the people of Arkansas our poll workers of course are people too and and what they need really counts as well and and we do have seventy five county is an extra day probably would help some of them I senator Hammer Ince that. But when indivisible is reached out to talk with counties to collect data on early but Monday early voting we reach out to eight counties in particular just move over and state agencies are reaching out to county's representative there on that committee and seven of the poll workers and election workers that we talked to volunteered that they thought eliminating the Monday early voting would be bad for voters basically what they were saying is that what's best for them is what's best for voters they actually thought that pushing voting more voters to Tuesday would be problematic for them so I guess what I'd like to to note here is that as a senator Hammer acknowledge not there are some counties who for whom this wouldn't be helpful but there are many more counties for whom they are a they their interests are let let's let's figure out how to get as many voters through as possible on the choice of date that they want to vote on because they've been doing this successfully and effectively for twenty four years since early voting became law and and can continue to do so as professionals so at it you know looking at fifty seven thousand voters voted on that day they've told voters have told us what works well for them and so that's what we're asking for is we we give the voters you know a sum priority consideration here on what works for them as well. I guess another point that I would like to make is that it S. before eighty five does seem a couple of elections late for it stated need and that you have already solve much of the problems by passing funding for new voting machines that are now have been installed throughout all of the county's these new voting machines are much easier to set up they have thumb drives to with all the software to set them up I don't know exactly the details but I do know that you know for example rural internet access is of course an issue but I don't know how that would be related as Senator Hammer suggested with regard to election security because of course these machines are on the internet it's there's some drives that will that's used to set them up. So so thankfully you know we've got those that that good technology there that you have made possible. And I guess just finally I would like to note that so many of the bills that passed this session have been controversial because they didn't cooperate the concerns of a large number of people who would be directly impacted by those bills and we feel that the SB forty five is controversy for this exact same reason and addresses the concerns of a handful of election officials in a handful of counties by but ignores the concerns of a great majority of their peers in other counties and of course there's the tens of thousands of voters as well that would be impacted by this so perhaps a better solution would be to find a way to help the counties that are asking for more support more staffing extra time in their account days that would serve all our cans and and not just some thank you so much for the opportunity to questions from committee members say none thank you ma'am for your time we appreciate next on the agenda to speak against the bill is Mr Lael jail. M. J. crew. Mr Rosal Page. This is thank you I'm sorry about that. It was very close really was pretty good may I promise you so you're recognized you might want to densify yourself committee since I did And so okay thank you so much Mr chairman and committee members hi my name is Sharmell resale and I live in Conway and I am a member of the league of women voters and I Faulkner County and I have only been to the capital to speak on this one a bill this entire session I have come to the capitol three different days to speak on this bill because it's very important to me and other people who choose to vote early. So it's been an option since the nineteen nineties and it's a popular option with voters as been stated before more than fifty one thousand people voted on that Monday this past November that might have been that eight most popular early voting day but it's still fifty one thousand up votes that happened on that Monday I'll tell you that my mother who is age eighty six and has had cancer twice in a stroke she likes to vote early so she can avoid the crowds on election day and so do all the ladies in her bridge club and a lot of people like to wait until Monday because they wanna make white as long as possible to have as much factual information as possible before they cast a vote. Based on the latest actual information so it's popular not only with voters but also with a lot of people who work at the polls because it releases congestion on election day. Now that might not be true in every county but counties get to choose whether or not they want to have a hold the polls open on that Monday so just to put things in perspective going back to nineteen ninety five when it Monday became an early voting day in Arkansas let's think about what was going on in nineteen ninety five and how long this is been popular with Arkansas voters. In nineteen ninety five Danny Ford was a razorback football coach that was before you should not J. Dickey and Tim Hutchinson were our congressman Mike Huckabee was about to be our governor Nolan Richardson was our basketball coach. Asa Hutchinson was not yet our congressmen but he was chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party now that's how long people are used to voting on Monday the day before election day so to take that away would cause a lot of confusion and chaos if people would all of a sudden show up on Monday the day that they were used to voting and there's a closed sign at their poll. I'm asking you to vote no on this because I think it's unnecessary to changing sense of people can choose that date and counties can also choose that day it protects the intent we have laws in place to protect the integrity of in a person voting. And so we would like to keep that option available for voters in Arkansas so thank you very much for your time thank you ma'am we appreciate your testimony questions from committee members saying none thank you ma'am we appreciate it. Signed up to also speak against the bill is bad chairman shall. You will just have to say to the table again value ships Committee you're recognized speak against Bill. Thank you Committee my name is Betsy Errol on the Benton county Clerk first I want to clear up a little confusion about whether this is optional or not ACA seven five four one eight actually spells out that it is the hours the parameter of the outside hours are for the county clerk's office any Election Commission can we get it right. County Board of election commissioners may decide to hold early voting at additional polling sites outside the offices of the county Clerk on any of the days and times provided for in subsection of this section so commissioners can have also early voting four days out of the fifteen two days no Saturdays and they can certainly end on Monday if they have a shortage of staff that makes it difficult for them to make that transition from early voting I don't see how early voting on Monday is any less secure than it is in the at the other days we follow the exact same pre procedures and checklists. seeing this first turned out I know one race that you may be particularly interested in the primary runoff was Monday was the number one day and then County for the primary run off for the last two six two cycles. Also as far as broadband access I do know that the most recent of massive grant coming out of Washington DC one of the things that that can be used for will be broadband broadband access so hopefully those smaller counties can get some of that money. And the smaller counties where there is not an active Election Commission and county clerks of bear the burden and they're still going to be open for business on that Monday so I'm not sure how eliminating early voting is really going to help them all that much. Let's see SP six forty three one of my favorites. ended the early the absentee return period on Friday before election so that we can and will no longer be spent issuing or returning absentee ballots it's also going to put even more people I think on to the burden of our early voting sites in election day sat. Of the fifty that seven thousand people in North within nine Arkansas who voted early on Monday six thousand of those bring Benton County. We did sixteen thousand six hundred absentee ballots are normal amount is about three thousand so if you take those thirteen thousand plus the six that's nineteen thousand people that we have to get into building sites. On other times. There's a tremendous growth population growth in Northwest Arkansas. And we need it absolutely every day and absolutely every hour that we can get because we're going to be facing a huge long lines and burdens if you want to talk about a burden on a poll worker facing a voter he's been in line for two hours that's hard on a poll worker I think even more so than a little less sleep on Monday night. And one thing about being short of poll workers if people in certain counties want to complain about the long lines because there aren't enough poll workers the best thing for them to do sign up to be a poll worker. there is a precedent for ignoring the concerns of a small group of counties. when When the primary was moved to March. Several counties in northwest and north central Arkansas expressed concern about the impact of whether. And I just want to remind you that. The impact of that the state of Arkansas felt in mid February. That storm would have hit the weekend before early voting started for the primary had occurred last year. So we can't always be all things to all counties but was seventy five counties of different varying sizes it's very important to main flexibility where it's possible and I think this is one area where that certainly is possible as far as. To me this is not a partisan issue. I know that some have tried to make it one. When I was elected I took an oath of office to serve a hundred and sixty five thousand people some of them are Republicans some of them are Democrats about seventy percent of them have no party preference on their records I took an oath to serve all of them I don't think this is a partisan issue I think that we need to remember that we are public servants serving the public and the public is not going to be happy losing this one day there are circumstances that happened to rise over weekends on Sundays that people find out they're going to be out of town on Tuesday and this would prevent them from voting if we do away with Monday particularly since we no longer have access to designated bearer ballots on Saturday and Monday like we have in the past. I think I should I think that's all I have to say any questions from committee members. If you Ladyman you're recognized for a question. There is thank you thank you Mr how many people did you say voted in Benton county on that Monday at twenty twenty it was six thousand. Successfully thank you. Any further questions from committee members Michelle thank you so much for your testimony we appreciate your time thank also also designed to speak signed up to speak against the bill is Neil Matthews Mr mat a male Matthews I'm sorry committees follow judge. Have seating table data by yourself to the committee in you're recognized speak against Bill. My name is Neil Matthews I am the spokesperson for legislative affairs for the league of women voters of Arkansas in nineteen ninety two I came home from work that my children and then I headed to the polling place to cast my ballot on November. Tuesday and I finally got to vote I joined a long line and finally got to vote at about eight thirty that evening and I believe that was probably part of the impetus to get voting early voting started in Arkansas so we had the bill twenty four years it hasn't always been perfect in about two thousand and eight I went to the early voting site at the sentiment Matthew ivory and I was in line there for about an hour trying to vote early it was because there simply weren't enough machines or else there is a lot of people that had to read the constitutional amendments and they were spending ten to twelve minutes and each person at the at the voting machine I was educated walked in voted was out in less than three minutes I believe so now I do still vote early I'm retired so my schedule is a lot more flexible but I go and I vote early and I find I never have a line and my son who's more of a traditionalist and loves to vote on election day it just is something that he feels. You know patriotic about he doesn't have lines he doesn't have to go in and wait he's never and I haven't heard of many lines substantial lines our long lines in the past election so. As I understand it the county clerks have not asked for this this is a bill that it's like a zombie or something it won't die it was in the Senate governor and government affairs committee and two times it did not pass out of committee until finally last Thursday after seven PM with nobody knowing that it was even going to be brought up it managed to get passed out of committee this is the same legislature that wants to tell. Physician's. Election officials teachers even insurance boards how to run their business and just you just need to keep a calm is directed toward to opposition to the bill not towards the sponsor okay okay I just would like to see this bill get a stake in the heart and finally die. So I urge you all to vote no thank you thank you ma'am any questions. Committee saying none we appreciate your time. I remind those speaking against the bill that this committee room has to be available within about fifteen minutes for another committee meeting we still have a couple of bills we need to hear so I would appreciate if you keep those stalls as you're doing the table in mind but we want to give you the opportunity to speak also signed up to speak against the bill is up Kamara's CEOs the sales you would just notify your zip Committee and you're recognized speak against Bill good morning not chairman of Tosh and committee members. My name is Camaro seals I'm from pine bluff. I am the policy director at the Arkansas public policy panel in Arkansas citizens first Congress what I want to do is just talk to you briefly. From the perspective of a grassroots person we are grassroots organization and we represent we have about fifty member groups throughout the state of Arkansas This this is very near and dear to my heart because I'm an advocate of for voter education I believe in voters being educated so when they go to the polls the vote okay make educated decisions. This is really critical and I'm I'm thankful first of all that Arkansas has the number of days that we have to vote early. So we are definitely thankful for that. But we don't want to lose Monday before the election early vote we are advocates to expand access to the ballot not restrict access and you know we've just seen a number of bills over the session that have been heartbreaking that actually you you know chips away or not voting rights but our access to the ballot and when we look at you know I don't want to repeat any testimony that's been given already for the sake of time but we do have to consider out rule areas I'm born and raised in a rural area of Hamburg is my home and we you know we have to consider some of the needs of of the rule areas and and the time you know it in in some of these places you you have of for example when I was growing up you know I grew up in Hamburg Hamburg is the county seat so people voted early would have to you know and I know it's only been you know twenty four years this is been on the books but you actually have to drive to another city in these small communities though so we need to take those type of things and into consideration so before you all you know and and I heard I heard senator are Hammer reference the fact that perhaps in the next legislative session they're looking at coming back with an additional date like a Saturday vote you know and that's great but we you know that expands access but the same time we don't want to restrict access there's a lot going on a lot is happening this legislative session and with both a losing ACT three days access for absentee ballots you know we just urge you all to please continue to allow our Kansans to vote on that Monday the the people I've talked to in the field want to continue our to vote on Monday you know we don't have you know ET Clark's here who have testified of. All in favor of this bill I know you all got a handout that we work privilege to and so I don't know what's on there but you know you've got five people who showed up to represent different voices to all I don't have time to read eagle cut me so it in a minute here. All you know for the good bill Reid. It is a good move but not not go read it. Just just a close and I really consider this you all are we we you know what I'm sold up three times to testify against the bill what it was blown Senate state agencies and it never did get to and then the fourth tab it radiant you know was defeated three times and that for that Megat but nobody knew what their up to to have our state so we you know we you know let's let's think about democracy let's think about the constituents all across the state of Arkansas you know let let's let's continue to vote on Monday the the counties that are having the problems of let's work with bill because is probably fewer than then we know you know a lot fewer than it is where this is working so just on behalf of grassroots people all across the state of Arkansas I don't think this is partisan at all I'll be as anything do with parts of politics is there any questions you have now okay you go ahead. You don't. I'm not finished I'm finished. Sure I did not do that you know I just we just ask you to consider voting no on this let us keep vote no Monday and mobilize our people to the polls to vote thank you for your time. Allen attain any questions. Committee members say none thank you for your time and all right. No one else signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Hammer. Kenai's. Like really close to your bill I am in respectful thank you got to be out of here I'll be quick I just want to get some of the highlights to kind of get to the to get to the four point regarding it did being defeated on the Senate in I had five votes the whole time this bill is just a matter of getting everybody in the chairs a one time and so I think you guys can probably understand that which would have gotten a bill out of committee I wanna make sure that we separate the rhetoric from reality that's what I want you to hear what separate the rhetoric from the reality first of all as we go through this and take a look at it you take a look at the letter that was given in that was provided that is an example and the comment was made about being from a rural county you'll may not know this but I lived in does arc five years pastor church there election day was the biggest Day when it brought all the community together and that was in a time when election day was about the only day you had it was the only day had vote and everybody made or property you know what people do twelve months of the year this was sent on Senate in twelve months of the year they pay the bills on time to get your kids to school on time they get to the soccer games on time they celebrate their anniversary on time they do everything else to because you're conditioned to do things on time what is important as far as the Miseducation of may go on or how it may create confusion with regards to taking Monday off from the privilege thank you work privilege of early voting I think this bill gotten enough attention that everybody's watching it and they're gonna be educated and know that money is not there show me mentions something about taking away the absentee it was moved to Friday at five o'clock and somebody said well you know that by not having early voting if I have to go out to know you'd still get your early you can still get your absentee ballot on Friday fill it out and mail it in to be treated just like all the other male and one so there's a response to. Each one of the things I know your educatee Committee the only thing I would just ask is that you would consider the fact of the number of people that chose to vote on the twelve other days of early voting and election a fact the comment was made that somebody voted on election day didn't have any problem at all that I to tell you something you got thirteen days to vote and so I would appreciate a good vote thank you jammers close with the bill. What's pleasure of the Committee representative Ladyman you make a motion for what. Representative to Ladyman is made a motion for a day pass any discussion on the motion. Representative Ladyman you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chair. Well obviously there's a lot of uh discussion about this in past weeks wells today but you know I took the I think they said fifty seven thousand people statewide voted on that day. And there were six thousand people voted in Benton County. Well if you just take the fifty seven thousand and divide that by seventy five that means there's only seven hundred roughly people have voted in each county well if you take the bigger counties like been a six thousand Pulaski Weston's lien Craighead. Take those out these rule counties have very few people voting on that day the letter that we have here from Prairie County says they only have one person vote that day. So you know I don't think the idea that it's an overwhelming a lot of people voting on that day that that doesn't look like that's true and rule counties in this bill specifically to help those rule counties can you imagine men all day one person show up. So you know I I think this is a good thing for our smaller counties and we are rule state. You take up the separate top counties about that fifty seven thousand numbers very very low. plus as a senator said you know if you've got thirteen days so vote and you don't. You know that cuts down to twelve that's still a lot of options. I think people could adjust their schedule for that so I'll be voting for representative Dotson you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chair I will. Be this two are good Just this. The day before the election historically speaking at least from my observation stand out there trying to wave people and encourage them to vote and and and that sort of thing has always been. Probably and besides election day and the first day of early voting the the biggest day I've seen people out there participating in and so I don't think the day before election is a a good day to get rid of So I'll be vote no against this but I think I see words had thank you. Thank you representative any public discussion on the motion. Further discussion on the motion I have a motion of do pass all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Those average bills failed. Next item on. One of C. two hands that Clark call the roll. Representative Meeks I. Representative gene. I representive love. Representative while. Representative Deffenbaugh. I representative Wardlaw. Representive Wardlaw. Represent Cozart. I represented Dotson No representative Miller. I represented Whitaker. No representative Payton. I represented Ladyman. I representative gray. No representative back. I representative speaks. I represented Richmond. I representive McCollum. Representative McCollum. Representative Johnson. Representative Johnson. Representative Hawks no. Representative Gonzalez. Representative Gonzales. The bill is failed secretary managing committee. Committee members we were just about to run out of time we're not need try to take care of this other businesses Senate bill six a Senate bill four sixty J. one in here to present that bill for Ballenger Senator Ballinger. Okay where does Senate bill six thirty for the president that bill for Senator Hester. Okay no one okay. And. In. Thank you. Representative makes you're recognized so our colleagues all this does is this is a house joint resolution ten forty six and what it does is it allows HJR one thousand for to be considered as a third constitutional amendment should the religious freedom restoration act fell on the floor today so if it passes on the floor this amendment becomes basically mute however if for some reason that amendment fails then this would give me the opportunity to present one thousand four as the third amendment. Thank you to you whether you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I'll be quick do you have a someone are running identical resolution in the sense I've talked with the Senator Rapert about that possibility should it become a possibility I I'd like side I think it's a long shot I don't think it's gonna have a problem but this is just to create that opportunity should it arise thank you represent. Any further questions from committee members represented by. So what you're saying is. To prevent us from having to have one more meeting in here we have the first step done if the other one fails correct thank you thank you Mr thank you any further questions. Say none. S. representative Matias clothes made a motion to pass all in favor say aye All opposed say no regulation bill pay. Committee thank you.