State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Representative of Speaker Shepherd you're recognized close we will. That committee thank you for your consideration and would appreciate a good vote. The representative Shepherd is close with the bill what's pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion representative love of do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye All opposed say no congratulates your bill is passed thank you Mr chairman thank you committee for. Next item on today's agenda is house bill thirteen sixty seven that's representative Penzo that that will be moved to win today's agenda at the request of the sponsor. Next item on today's agenda is sixteen thirty five representative Milligan do you still want that moved to Wednesday's. Agenda. I move that Wednesday's agenda. Committee members at this time we're going to take up house bill eighteen eighty two. Representative Crawford. In the room. Okay. Go back to the top of the agenda. The. What. President. No let's go ahead and get those ads we got to talk about your bill let's let's hold up towards the and representative and we've got some several legislators in here from other committees and okay so let's let it would take up Senate bill of four eighty eight Senator Hammer you're recognized just have safety of the table. Senator Hammer you're recognized to present Senate bill four eighty eight. Thank you Mr members of the committee representive Lowery would be here but thank you chairman of the committee and so of the come down take care on this and I appreciate the opportunity set for you this bill places an exemption on FY A. for balances records that cannot be examiner copied otherwise ordered by a court of law still allows the poll watcher to inspect the voter statement during election while ensuring the secrecy of the ballot and it is a clean up to apply during the election the issue is that a group came in in one of our counties using F. or why a and inspected ballots took photos help balance to the lights according to witnesses it was too late to stop them because there was nothing in in law that would prevent that from happening and so that's what this bill is intended to do and did run this by association counties and no objection of the association of counties I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you from committee members represented glad you're recognized for a question thank you mention out no Mr hat Senator Hammer can you can you repeat what you said in regards to the example for the example. Yes Sir why this bill wasn't necessary yes Sir it was reported nothing substantiated the groups came into certain polling areas in the state and under the current FY a law they were able to inspect ballots took photos help the ballots to the light according to witnesses the gave testimony under the current law it's too late for them to stop doing that and that's what this bill is intended to do to stop that. Follow Mr. He recognized in this and is this in regards to to them inspection in a court of law. No Sir my understanding is they came into the election site and did this and this would still allow and what you brought that up representative love this would still allow under court order for it to be allowed but it would be as ordered by the court so they're still access to the information but it would be protected up to that point. Thank you Mr. Other questions from committee members. Say none we've got. Okay. Say no one signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Hammer you're recognized to close with your bill thank you Mr just like to tell people I'd be looking at ballots for those are duly recognized in this will close that loophole so that it can be you know be protected as mentioned did robots Association counties without objection so I would appreciate a good vote. Committee member senator Hammer close with the bill what's pleasure of the Committee representative let him and we have a motion of a do pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye All opposed say no congratulations tram your bill is passed thank you Mr members of the committee. Jammer you have a question. No Sir I just want sure what or you're taking the bill okay do you I'm well step I'm I'm or have stepped away I just you will walk away and and from no you're fine what is going on here senate bill four eighty seven. Okay you're recognized for this Senate bill four eighty seven thank you bill does basically two things there's little bit of confusion regarding who had final authority with regards to the termination were vote centers were located as they could well as currently written this is county Clerk or County Board of election commissioners County Board of election commissioners are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the election process I know in many counties most counties if not all counties delegated to the county Clerk but there were some situations worse conflicting and so the intent of this bill is to bring clarity by just assigning that due to the County Board of election commissioners because it says county Clerk or so you know we got two people in the driver seat you can get a little confusing the second thing it does on the back page page two lines eight through fourteen is it just establishes the fact that the voting machines cannot be hooked up to a database so as to protect the integrity of the machines by not hooking it up to an outside internet service were somebody outside could access information on those machines and with that Mr I'll be glad to take any questions. Any questions from committee members. Say no one signed up to speak for against the bill senator Hammer you ready to close when your bill yes optional consider two main points and I appreciate a good vote Mr members committee. Senator Hammer is close with the bill of rights pleasure of the Committee representative lady mavs motion of a do pass any discussion on the motion saying none all in favor say aye. Jose NO congradulations family your bill is but thank you Mr. Your may be excused or. You've got one more I do. That got me senate bill four eighty six it would be yes Sir go ahead you're recognized to present it thank you Mr this bill for example in the intent of what is intended to do it establishes a hundred foot perimeter around the exterior entrance to the building where voting is taking place except for persons entering or leaving the building where voting is taking place for lawful purposes we as politicians have to maintain a hundred foot safety zone entering into the main entrance this extends to any other groups that may be within the hundred foot zone we had examples of individuals away from down to senator Gardner's District appear to Central Arkansas districts work entities were camped out inside a hundred foot zone and were handing out of and they were handed out bottled waters and other things some were wearing a tee shirts that identified the group that they were with and just common opinion of the senator and the majority the senators on the other end that that hundred foot shall not be considered sacred for all purposes nobody camping out inside that and free movement the reason we put lawful purposes in there is a lot of our voting places are public buildings like libraries we want the ingress and egress in an out to flow smoothly so we want want the library or somebody returning a book to be targeted to be arrested because they're in the hundred foot cell but that's an example of why we put that language in there to make sure that we would protect everybody that has lawful business to be there at that establishment they could also apply to church members maybe they're coming in other churches where we have church locations located we just don't want anyone camping out inside that hundred foot zone because we think it ought to be a sacred John and with that I'll be glad taking questions Mr any questions from committee members. What about one person. Signed up to speak against the bill. Lori eleven seven three still in the room. Yeah sure I would just have messed up to decide what yes please do thank you seven you would just have stated in the table. We're just identify yourself for the committee and you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you. But you can hear me okay my name is Laurie Evans I'm with indivisible Little Rock and Benton Arkansas we're at a voter add rights advocacy group as well as I group that registers educates and mobilizes voters vertically in central Arkansas and we do oppose SB four eighty six thank you Mr chair and and to the represents for the opportunity today. So we feel the SB forty six is simply more government bureaucracy putting rules on top of rules since election hearing is already illegal within one hundred feet of the polls clearly alert legal people know this rule and if they don't election officials to let them know about the role that we are public election officials to enforce the law very effectively we see it happening we see take measures out by election officials at the polls doing their jobs well and so we certainly think that it's worthwhile to respect the work that they do we do think it's an example of government overreach voting lines are long they're often hide elderly voters and those with modest disabilities are waiting in these lines some of the polling locations don't those that that are easily you know like if there's one stream of traffic that's coming in but where you can for example set up above table with water bottles with outside the one hundred feet we are we were of course working with groups at the polls where that's what they set up but there were also some polling locations we can't really do that because of the traffic flow you know the with the way people are walking in there coming in from multiple directions and so then you it's ideal to set up you know refreshments closer to the polling location and that's why we did it for example at one particular location because otherwise we would have missed the voter's. Thought so the main point is that it restricts the rights of people to choose to help it restricts freedoms it's you know power of if you saying to the committee you know we don't trust you to exercise this freedom responsibly therefore we're going to take it away from you know so we just we just feel like this policing of elections is unnecessary in excess of and then one more thing I would like to add is that on the Senate side cannot hear me on the stand set up a little bit I just wanna make sure my voice carries. on the Senate side one senator called this a tiny bill that doesn't do much so why make such a big deal of or at but the thing is it's not just one bill is that is part of an election package that representative will refer Lowery referred to as the election integrity package so there's at least fourteen bills or maybe more I'm not sure that we're tracking that do in some way restrict access to the polls or restrict groups that are working to support voting rights in Arkansas so we we feel like it all of these bills have been offered as one single package one single bill election integrity bill it would have been rejected out of hand it would have been much more clear to the price and to our Kansans that oh wow this is going to have a very big impact on hundreds of thousands of Arkansas voters next year and so that's why I'm here today I'm not I'm speaking to this one bill we oppose this one bill and and it's restrictions on the rights of good Samaritans to just say you know happy voting thank you for voting so would you know one thing we really agree with Senate president Senator Hammer on is the active voting is sacred we absolutely agree with their one hundred percent it should be an act that honored that should be respected I'm in we also feel it should be celebrated and that's part of the work that we're doing is that we're celebrating civic engagement we're celebrating all the young people were held at the polls you know handing out water bottles it because they wanted to it to engage civic with you know with civic action and this would be you know restrict restrict them on being able to do that so rather than a litany of crackdowns you know that do kind of add up. To a broad range of restrictions we hope that our communities and our election since the systems would be better if laws facilitated communities coming together around civic engagement thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today I do appreciate it. Thank you ms eleven questions from committee members representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman. got a couple questions I'll ask for follow up problems So. Your first statement was that this is already a law thank you said that the electioneering is against the law. Within one hundred feet of the polls it's against the law follow a recognized. So this is against the law yet your organization when I hadn't done this you just said that we did add let campaigning or or talking about that candidate's or promoting candidates or parties within one hundred feet of the polls is against the law handing out water bottles or food or refreshments or telling people happy voting is not against the law but it will be now to be to place oneself within one hundred the PP to the poles and do those particular activities with this law no one more follow up please you're recognized. So. In order to clarify this this law is needed you degree I E. I agreed about the a law that prohibits electioneering with one hundred and within one hundred feet of the polls I absolutely agree with that one hundred percent and that should be fully enforced completely thank you Mr. Any further questions from committee members say none no one else is signed up to speak for against bill miss Evans thank you for your time before you today. Senator Hammer. You're recognized close with your bill. Thank you Mr members committee and just to a highlight on a couple of comments what this bill is intended to do is to bring clarity so as to prevent any type of electioneering you know sometimes you can be online not necessarily talking but depending what the message on your T. shirt As You can be sending a message and so what this is intended to do is just create that a hundred foot safety zone sacred's on that unites politicians have to live in so why shouldn't other groups or entities have to live with it as well on the as on the Senate side there's a lot of issue about you know being hot and everything and this is Arkansas the weather does what it pretty well wants to do but you know to use as the basis to give a bottle water on a hot day lections usually take place in November so I just want to point out that the intent of this is not to restrict or to suppress voter rights but it is to restrict any attempts of election nearing within that hundred foot zone I'll just give an example I'm not necessarily a good carpenter but by my estimate we're talking probably from that wall to this wall somewhere in the seventy to seventy five foot range that's what we're talking about what happens outside of that happens outside of that but you have to have boundaries in order to protect the process and make sure that when people get in that saves on they don't have to worry about being approached that's my part that's my personal opinion but part of this is driven by experiences that we shared with us that brings this law before you to be voted on today for my part when I'm inside that hundred foot sacred zone I really don't want to be bothered by anybody because I'm focused on getting into voting I just would appreciate is members of this committee if you would make that zone is sacred as we have to comply to that other groups would have to apply to as well with that Mr members committee I appreciate a good vote Senator hammers close with them what's pleasure of the Committee. Have a motion of do pass representative makes any discussion on the motion. None all in favor say aye opposed say no congratulates senators I believe that your last bill on to today's agenda for us thank you Mr members to committee okay thank you. Members next item will take up will be house bill seventeen ninety three representative Scott. Representative god Senator Ballenger welcome back state agencies. Thank you. Recognized to present your bill okay good morning colleague Senator Ballenger and I recently found house bill seventeen ninety three this bill will require a correction or detention facility operated by the department of corrections to establish a policy to offer mammograms imposition because the taste call center consultations to female inmates and detainees of certain ages mammograms will be offered to female inmates ages fifty to seventy five every two years. Or two female inmates ages fifty forty to fifty years with the frequency will be determined by the position while receiving the services the inmates will be given information focus on the importance of preventive. Health care measures that include breast care self examinations studies have shown that women in jail have and have an increased risk to have early and to take the signs of breast cancer rates of cervical and breast cancer are higher among its incarcerated women likely related to the under screening both before incarceration and while in custody there is no known opposition to this bill we work closely with the department of corrections when drafting house bill seventeen ninety three and we have their support and I would like to turn it over to Senator Ballinger if you would like to add anything. Yeah just resort thank you for. This opportunity come back to this committee I think it's probably the best committee room and maybe the best committee and and the legislature so don't tell that to the other committees yeah well you know what's funny Joint Budget. So. The if this is actually representative Scott and I've been looking for an opportunity to work together on a bill and this one is is a perfect example I think it is a it's not only probably the right thing to do we have people who are in our care to help provide them with better healthcare I think it's also we can more conservative thing to do so if you catch it early the treatments are a whole lot lot cheaper and they're better results for the people you know my personal kind of tied to this is obviously most of you all know the my wife is going through breast cancer treatment right now but we kind of really early and because we got a really early she's going to be fine but if we had a kind of really early and and frankly also the treatment and been that bad you know we're less less than a year and it will be done in about two weeks of radiation and all the treatments if the instead of being a stage to fill the stage for we would know if mom was going to be around and the treatments would still be going on probably for a lot longer and so from the standpoint I think it's the right thing to do for these women but then also it also makes a where the their care and treatments going to be cheaper they were able to catch it early on the front end up happy to try to answer any questions questions from committee members representative Cozart you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair appreciate what you're doing and makes a great bill the only question I have this is also could be an issue for me and is that going to be allowable for men to have that does happen. At so this would be if it's a female so. Yeah so so it is specifically the bill specifically says female so if that's died is it that is a biological female so if it's a oh okay I'm sorry I thought you were going on a whole different pass read about a. No no this is just for female but but but honestly that would that would make sense because Bill Clinton yeah that's all well and I don't blame election went there but in this world either that's over there but it in this in this instance what what the the occasion of male having breast cancer in just so much smaller than the female so the risk is that there and honestly the the the benefit of having that screening probably wouldn't override the the burden just either thank you Mr. Representative spoke you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. I'm not saying I'm not for your bill but I just like to know what the cost is going to be for this. So the cost of this may actually save money so that's the that's the point is that we actually already have a fairly high breast cancer rate within the in the the system itself and so with the early detection then it may be like you know in in the instance of of my wife Jessica you don't you that will have a look at what that to me did not have to have a double mastectomy which is it takes a long time recover it's expensive surgery and and then have relatively short treatment so if of what this. What we believe is this bills ACT scan of saving the department corrections money in the long run. Follow up recognized I don't think you've answered my question. At the answer is it's it's not it's not you we it's hard to determine because there will be up front cost of doing the screenings but then in the in the early detection is go save a ton of money so I don't know how to how to actually determine what the cause to be. Thank you Mr chair. Representative dodging you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair and as much as I'd like to come up with another question represent Cozart sold mine but just want to try to give former chair of this committee a hard time somehow I can't come up with one unlike the Bill. It It Gonzales you're recognized for a question. They Mr continue or do you know what now how the health care system that in the prisons worker in this correction Philip facilities it seems to me like we contract with someone to provide the health care so would this actually be an additional cost to have these exams provided can we have Mr going come up I mean dexter come up to answer that please if you're last chance in the bodies are on his way I think that the the reality is some of the stuff is already happening already occurring and and it wouldn't be additional cost and you know you probably could speak to that as well as anybody because you have to know the one of people contracts with them. No questions from committee members. Yes Sir. German to us next Pam the director for the division of correction us support this bill fully as we already do what he's asking to be done this bill would just make sure that down the road that when I'm grown somebody else can go and change whatever we've done this bill is already in effect and of we are doing it so there's no additional cost to we've already contracted with our medical provider for thank you for that ensure project you clear that up for stricter representative gene you're recognized for a question. So right now we're already given mammograms every two years. But in this just put it in the end of the law yes Sir that's correct thank you. Representative Gonzalez you have follow the yes I do thank you Mr So when you contract with health care providers that does that include all the health care do you have to name out specific things like this preventive. Care in those contracts. Yes Sir we we name a specific details in the contract so this is named out that we healthcare provider will path will provide this service force and we're already provide the service and is already in policy with the division of corrections. Okay all right thank you. Represent Wardlaw you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman I've said over and listen to this and do we do the same thing for the male of prisoners on prostate cancer and. We do screening but not to the detail as this bill is asking what is our rate on prostate cancer in prisons today. Senator I don't know of that money and I could find that information out for you and and get it to you. I just don't want to tolerate yes Sir thank you I don't want to discriminate against the males in this I'm all for this bill and I understand the need but if the for having a problem with prostate cancer I think we ought to do screenings there as well yes Sir representative Deffenbaugh you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair I really want to say the same but My my brother actually had breast cancer and so Is there any getting idea that you might change this bill are amended or anything like that it's only like it is. I'm I'm open to do whatever and whatever the will is that the committee Senator. The representative football if the the thing that I would say about that is I would hate to then we may be talking about a and a an additional cost if what we're talking about a screaming every male in a one this is a lot more male inmates but to the incidence of breast cancer and I and I'm I'm sorry for the situation with your with your brother that they should be getting regular health care treatments but if what we're talking about is now mandating mammograms with that population we're probably talking about a lot of additional costs and and frankly the same reason why very few of the men on this this committee ever go get mammograms is probably the same reason why we would want to required with inmates it because the likelihood of us getting having breast cancer is as small so if you know your your brother situation is I mean and they're they're out there it's not like to that is is absolutely unheard of it just the the benefit of of that firm for me and it's just not nearly as high as it is for women. I understand thank you. Well you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair. Just a quick question to the other gentleman the other table do the inmates get a yearly check up and have a screening set for the man for the PSA and all those things. I'll have to check on it find out that information that I didn't know it at and I would prepare for the I understand but I mean that would be probably a of an answer to represent ward laws and of Deffenbaugh mind altogether thank you Sir have a roll that down and thank you senator. If the questions from committee members. Saying none no one signed up to speak for against the bill representatives guide center bag you're recognized close to your bill. I'm Inc in closing I would just like to highlight that the cancer treatment for these women is required if they're in our care. and I correction facilities and as far more expense expensive then the screenings and preventive treatment and with that miss now that I do have a sheet that shows the national sheet that shows what the cost savings are for something like this and I'm happy to share with you and I'm also billing representative were allowed to work with the department of corrections on creating a policy that would adhere to the issues regarding me and we probably don't have time in this legislative session to get something passed that would address those specific issues but I'm willing to work on all of that and we would just appreciate the. God is close with the building what's pleasure of the Committee. Representative Ladyman is made a motion of a do pass any discussion on the motion have discussion on the motion and motion representative Wardlaw you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you Mr. I will be voting NO if we vote today I think you can send this back and get an amendment and come back and address those male inmates to make this bill neutral I spoke to a few committee members and I think that's where it will be today unless we can get an amendment. Any further discussion on the motion of a do pass. Shane none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Does have a graduation bill is passed. Committee members before we get to House Bill eighteen eighty two we've got several people signed up to speak up against this bill. Three school or. Several people signed up to speak against this bill we're going to try to get another bill and to keep from Having them delayed here in Committee of representative Beatty are you in the room. Representative Beatty. They are steps a day of the table you're recognized to present Senate bill four one five. In a five set up for the committee also you get the the killer deal the table we would identify yourself to the committee in you're recognized present your bill. Representative power Beatty District nine here to present Senate bill four one five. Go Rogers with the Arkansas department of transportation okay you're recognized. Mr chairman members of the committee Senate bill four one five I presented earlier there was a request for an amendment to to the bill if the bill is to amend the law concerning relocation assistant the payments the requested language added to the bill was to add a notation as it existed on January one of twenty twenty one that amendments been handed to the bill are added to the bill and and the bill basically just directs the readers to the current US code site versus the name of the legislation in the U. S. Code so with that will entertain any questions from the committee. Representative dodging you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair so just just so I'm understanding this correctly this is is if there's eminent domain type deals where somebody has to move to to state action or or. Improvement district what I mean any other public entity that requires them to to move that's the payments that we're talking about here that's correct okay thank you motion property representative representative levy recognized for a question thank you Mr now thank you also let us speak on this what is the current practice now. I can't go into detail of representative love on what current practices we follow the federal guidelines we have for years this statute just codifies what the federal law is and makes reference to the federal law so people know where to go we we the feds said essentially minimum standards of the state can make more strict standards if they choose to under the practices that we've been utilizing for the past several years we've not had any complaints requests for changes at the state or local level I can't I don't know the details of how the process works but I know that we have a very link the an involved process for relocation when we're talking about having to move either individuals or businesses okay so what follows Mr you're recognized so so we're we're already doing yes Sir okay all right thank you. Any further questions from committee members. Saying no no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative body recognized close we bill Mister chairman I'm close with requests to do pass a motion for committee. Representative body is close with these bill we have a motion from committee representative Dotson potion of do pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no graduates your bill is passed thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Committee members now we're gonna go to House Bill eighteen eighty two. Eighteen eighty two representative cooperative you would just have a seat at the end of the table. Committee members just so you know we've got several people signed up today to speak against this bill. Did you covered you have someone in the table we are you here to speak for the bill yeah I guess this is can you you're not signed up to go in a dignified ship of the committee my name is can you hang on the director of governmental affairs for Arkansas family council. Recognize revenue to cover you're recognized president a House bill eighteen eighty two thank you Mr chair committee I bring before you today a bill that protects physical private and safety and showers restrooms locker rooms changing facilities of government property H. B. eighteen eighty two requires a person using a shower or restroom locker room change the facility or similar facility on governor government property to use a facility that corresponds to the person's biological sex H. B. eighteen eighty two does not affect private businesses or entities. And it is only it only applies to Philip facilities on government property such as public schools universities state parks and government buildings H. B. eighteen ninety two also provides reasonable accommodations for anyone and willing or unable to use multi occupancy facilities the current law does not protect the privacy and safety of our canned Arkansas students and children on government property when using these facilities I'll be glad I'm sure you guys have lots of questions I have lots of information so I will stop there and take your questions rather than rambling. Any questions from committee members. Representative gene you're recognized for a question. Thank you senator this only deals with state or government owned buildings so that could be local. Correct city or is it with this deal with federal building yes. Well we have the ability to do government property so okay would go that way and let me re iterate that we were asking that people use the bathroom that. They were born with with their sex there are many ways to accommodate that weather let's say for the capital for entrance instance for the bathrooms we have we can designate one has a gender neutral and we could designate another one for female. And then you would have your mail bathrooms and when you're looking at public schools they could do that as well they to have a certain facilities that they would specifies gender neutral follow of recognized all right on on these. Choirs are facilities or private public how to deal with those. What do you mean I can answer that I think when the echo government building is actually defined on page two line to the four and it goes into that is this specific area of a building or structure that is owned leased or otherwise under the control of the government entity so that was a question that was asked we were filed a bill about what about a private facility but there's a part that's government owned and that's how that's covered okay. Thank you. Representative Dotson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair this. I'm not even sure where to start with this bill So. This is a very far reaching the Bill and I'm not sure how it would actually work in practice are you going to have. People outside of the bathroom checking people's birth certificates. How does how does this actually work don't you believe list top public schools for a minute that there are enough facilities to put a label on a bathroom that says agenda amid gender neutral we have bathrooms in the capital as well which are individual stalls that could be man or woman for. Gender neutral. Do you understand that part. If I may represent us and I think to to to answer questions I mean obviously there's no provision in this bill that would require some sort of the person outside of a facility or whatever I think you know the people of use us as a point before this is not the case and places like North Carolina have passed this Tennessee and Mississippi have passed this and you know there's not people guarding facilities and and that regard and it's been implemented quite quite smoothly actually the other states have more stringent measures than ours follow recognized so if you mention like North Carolina which I believe they repealed that law after was passed only a portion is this modeled off that bill. this is actually a little more refined it is somewhat model after that bill they did only repeal of portions of the law not that nothing entirety of the North Carolina the bill but it is it is last I would say less expensive but more more concise. Right thank you Mr you will. Any other questions from committee member representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman I have a question this is Page two I believe it is line two and three eight or nine there were talks about a building or structure that is owned leased or otherwise under the control of government entity so if you have one of these public private projects season arena that the government is involved in put money into or whatever but it's totally run by private. Company entity. With that structure be covered under this bill. four mortar where the way I'm reading it is if it's a specific area or if it's the entire area that's owned by the owner and leased or in control I guess I think that's that's probably the the best way in control by the government entity it would apply if they're not the one controlling it I would say I would say it wouldn't apply. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair want to go back and revisit the represent Dotson's question just a little bit. Because. There's there's no way you're going to have people checking people before they go into a restaurant so really what this bill does is that there's some type of incident. It provides the ability to prosecute. Once they find out that somebody's in the wrong bathrooms and not really the purpose of this bill correct and so you read incident incidences in like Georgia or Pennsylvania where elementary school girls have been sexually assaulted and and this would you know put a stop to that a situation happening. Follow up Mister recognized. If somebody sexually assaulted in in a restroom cannot already be prosecuted. Yes but they are going into that restroom so girls restrooms saying that they were gender fluid as I believe they were saying that they were a girl and and so because that state recognized that and they were they were going to restrooms are changing facilities that are designated for females but they were so there are mails saying that they were females all right thank you thank you Mr. We know of further questions from committee members. We've got several people signed up to speak against the bill representive Crawford of unity a would move from the end of the table make room for our other guest. Speaking against the bill is will push years. Share a habit. Separately would justify yourself for the committee and you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you. Morning my name is Sir I read and I'm an attorney at the American civil liberties union Arkansas I'm here to express the ACLU of Arkansas strong opposition to house bill eighteen eighty two. For more than fifty years the ACLU of Arkansas as work to defend the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone in our state especially vulnerable communities whose rights are often the first to be infringed we do this because of our solemn obligation to uphold the constitution but also because we know that when the government violates the rights of one honorable group it also puts everyone else's rights at risk this is the case with house bill eighteen eighty two which aims to prevent transition of children and adults from safely accessing restrooms throughout the state no state has passed such a law since North Carolina and twenty sixteen and they quickly reversed course when they found the low costing their state hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation lost jobs revenue entertainment sports including NC double a games and more I would just like to address the other bathroom bills that are currently pending including Tennessee's this falls far broader than those the Tennessee law applies only to public schools where is this law applies to all state and local buildings Transgender people are part of our community our families our workplaces and our neighborhoods and they just like everyone else need to be able to safely access restrooms. Preventing people who are transgender from using the right restaurant in government buildings and schools would effectively push them out of public life you can't travel attend classes or even access government services if you have to worry that you won't be allowed to use the restroom. All of us including transgender people care about safety and privacy in restrooms and locker rooms in fact trans people are often are more often the target of harassment and assault than their cisgender peers and violence against trans people is only getting worse. It is already illegal to enter a restroom or locker room for the purpose of harming someone or invading someone's privacy anyone who enters the women's restroom to harm women and girls will be subject to arrest and prosecution all this bill would do is target transgender people for further discrimination. Laws that require trans people to use the wrong restroom or locker room do nothing to prevent salts and that's why more than three hundred leading sexual assault and domestic violence advocates oppose laws like house bill eighteen eighty two. Protecting transgender people from discrimination does not allow boys or men into the women's restroom because transgender girls are girls and transgender women are women period. We simply cannot address privacy concerns by forcing trans people and to separate spaces and sending the message that they should be ashamed of who they are and of their bodies. And restrooms we simply do not see other people's bodies the reality everyone has likely already share a restroom with the trans person without even realizing it and locker rooms have private areas where people can change to avoid and counting encountering others such as restroom stalls or privacy curtains. The Supreme Court including the majority of the court's current justices has recognized the federal bans on sex discrimination include protections from discrimination based on transgender status given that the court specifically rule title seven protects trans people from discrimination in employment this bill would expose state and local governments and all public schools and universities to title seven claims by trans employees. Title nine has long prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and federal courts including at least four circuit courts of appeals and federal agencies have recognized that this includes protections for transgender students including in single sex spaces and activities a cert petition on this issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court this bill would raise costly litigation and federal education funding by forcing schools to discriminate against transgender students in violation of federal law. Schools are well equipped to manage the needs of students and restroom and locker room settings the experience of school administrators across the country the show that none of the fears about trans individuals accessing restrooms and locker rooms have come to pass instead the privacy and safety of all students have been accommodated and protected. Schools have a duty under federal and state law to ensure that all students can learn in a welcoming and harassment harassment free environment including transgender students who are especially vulnerable to harassment discrimination is stigmatizing and discriminatory to expel transitions from common spaces. School districts around the country allow trans students to use facilities based on their gender identity these policies enhance safety by ensuring that schools are not sending the message that it's OK to target or stigmatize trans students there is no date of any kind to support the claim that these policies undermine the safety of students. Once again we are putting schools in the impossible situation of either violating federal law and risking lawsuits or violating this law and still risking lawsuits. Well as attacks against trans people in Arkansas have to stop for all these reasons on behalf of the ACLU of Arkansas and thousands of supporters across the state I respectfully ask you to vote no on house bill eighteen eighty two. Thank you. Thank you any questions from committee members. Seeing none thank you for your time. Miss ever. Next to speak against the bill is Kelly. Kraut I pronounce it correctly yes Sir. Recognized justify yourself for the committee and you're recognized to speak against the bill thank you I'm Kelly crowd I'm here to speak against the bill just as a woman who has used women's restrooms for most for my whole life well I disagree with this bill I do believe most people are trying to do good I appreciate that you're trying to protect women I want to share scenario though that I don't think it's being frequently considered in this conversation and that is if someone identifies or is I'm sorry forgive me is. forget mental nervous I've never done this before. Someone is assigned female at birth and does transition transitions with hormones presents as a man perhaps even gross facial here and walks into the women's restroom as this bill passes do you think that your wife or your daughter or your sister is going to feel like all that must be it man because they're in the women's restroom I don't think so I think a lot of us tend to assume that we can spot someone who's transgender and that is not entirely true transmitter not out in mass to make women feel uncomfortable they don't want to out themselves or cause a scene in the women's restroom most the conversation seems to revolve around the other side but a trans man walking into a women's restroom will make women uncomfortable. More importantly trans women are even more vulnerable population forcing them to use the men's restroom will absolutely add to their risk she is safer in the women's restroom with me and I'm not afraid of her most women won't even realize that she's there. This legislature has been loud and clear about trans rights but so far if you don't need healthcare if you're not a minor who's hoping to transition if you don't want to play sports you might possibly be exempt from Arkansas as laws about transgender. However this rule will apply to everyone everyone has to use the restroom every now and then but as I tell my seven children get in there to your business wash your hands and get out we're making much too big of a deal about this I promise you that they're trans family members who are refusing to come home to their Arkansas family promise their families who are trying to leave our state to protect their trans youth committee will never step foot in our state in the first place and if your gut reaction to that as well good. Then that's incredibly heartbreaking. This is America where we teach our children from kindergarten that we are one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all we are not teaching them to recite liberty and justice for those whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth the attention that we're getting nationwide for this kind of stuff is perpetuating an image that Arkansas is in welcoming an unkind and that hurts my heart I love my state and I think that we can do better than this I beg you please to vote no on this bill that is going to because I needed an additional harm to a very small but very vulnerable population thank you thank you Mr clapper appearing before this committee any questions from committee members saying none thank you again. Signed up to speak against the bill is dexter Payne director Pine. You're recognized identify yourself for the committee you're recognized speak against the bill I'm back to playing on the director for the Arkansas division of corrections also have with me Scott Bradley from the association of Arkansas counties of this bill is I'm not a strongly opposed to with my issue is I want to bring to light that this will be extremely burdensome to the Arkansas division of correction to monitor and divide whose transgender and who goes in which restroom so it's going to cause us extreme difficulties and we also have to of does it have a fiscal impact on us also as will as we have to Make some of arrangements and I restrooms the division of corrections so this is gonna be rear process for the division of corrections. Discussion yes Sir I'm Scott brown number directly Arkansas share association we we echo basically the the same issues a deduction spoke about I'm not sure how we'd handle it because a lot of our jails are all in a big pod together there's not a lot of privacy in there anyway so I'm not sure exactly how we would handle this moving people around so that they could use facilities or take showers things like that so those are just some of the issues we had with his concern with the jails. Okay thank you both any questions from committee members representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question. Thank Mr I'm just trying to figure out exactly how this is gonna be a problem so are you saying that you have transwomen in women's facilities and and. Transmitted in the so you have women and men facilities in men's and women's facilities today no Sir not at not not at this current time we don't but that's a possibility down the road and also I mean if if we're want to make the dividers in the every stall and I mean you can provide us with security issues as well if you if you block if you block the view you know they can provide us with a severe security issues that we can't see what's going on behind the petition. And it because understand the thank you yes. The question represented recommend you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr so if you have a male and a male prison the transition when you move them to a women's prison. No there now woman. No Sir it just depends on how they will. I was kind of hard to explain depends on it's really hard to understand and agree with you yes Sir will depends on what you are when you come to prison after you've had if you've had fortunately we haven't been in a situation where we've had someone actually transition while they were in prison so basically our deal is when you come to prison what you identify as in what. March you have when you come is where we House you it it so how many people follow up. How many people that we had transition last five years zero. Thank you Mr representative does unless you're recognized thank you Mr so some kind of piqued my interest you said fortunately we haven't had anyone transition in prison is it even possible for someone to transition in president will. In nineteen eighty nine having to pay for that healthcare yes so we have to pay for that if the transition so what we do is is if they start the transition prior to coming to prison and they hate they receive medications not actually not an actual surgery if they really receiving medication like all hormone medication we continue that inside well we don't actually at this time to the secretary. Follow up Mister recognized so it seems like that is that is an optional thing amended to we. We provide elective procedures or elective medications and and presents that I the medication part yes Sir not not the not the actual surgeries or procedures. Okay thank you representative back you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Thank you Mr chair of. The director I a you have a question our first met statement that that. You said that. You take people as a entered into the system whatever their sex was at that point of so. That's kind of what this bill does right the only difference is when you enter. It is if you're not if you haven't changed already then this bill says. You should use the bathroom that you were assigned to so you I mean you're basically saying the same thing you just take a different one time would you agree. Yes on that portion of the bill yes Sir I agree. So yes yes please thank you. The the the with the point I'm making is is that seems to be the discussion of this bill at what point do and I'm not speak for against the same but at what point would you say that we should say that a person is now transgender in I'll a day ago they warrant now they they are that that that seems to be the issue here so what you're saying is as a. Government person that well what they are when they come into the system is what we treat him as all the way through the system. That's correct our thank you. Additional questions your representative dodging you're recognized. Thank you Mr so just on this discussion here reading through this. This bill as far as the definitions of the word sex in this bill means the person's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth. So if. Following your your your discussion or your your answers there. If someone had transition prior to entering. You would assign them to whatever facility they had transitioned to as what I believe I heard you saying however this bill would require you to assign them to whatever they were assigned at birth the biologically so it may be something different than what they legally are at the time they enter prison that's correct yes Sir okay thank you. Any additional questions from committee members. A nun thank you director thank you sure. And find the problem so to speak against the bill is Michael Marion misdemeanor and used. I would just have say the date of the table. Verifies chip for the committee in your recognized speak against Bill. Thank you Mr chairman thank you committee members I'm Michael Marion I'm the general manager the Simmons bank arena we are a publicly owned building even though we don't receive any money from the taxpayers for operation but I would like to speak against this bill likely to vote against it as many of you know in North Carolina years ago five years ago they passed a bill they lost a lot of events they lost in C. W. events but also concerts laid off conventions they lost a lot of business he would have a serious effect not only in the arena in north little rock this would affect the Fort Smith convention center hot springs convention center so I'd really encourage you to vote against this and also the other part of the bill of the accommodation section basically requires us to bill more bathrooms it is the litigators nightmare and ours using a dream for litigator nightmare for us that if someone if if we accidentally let somebody come into a bathroom the wrong sex the the question in the bill and based on the bill is did we give them permission by not stopping them. So if that's the case now we're getting sued so now we got to spend money on bathrooms and let me tell you after going through this pandemic. We've had a tough time we've laid off people we furloughed people and we're trying to get back on our feet we're looking forward to a fall or we have events and spending money on building bathrooms for just a few people is not on my top of my wishlist so I'd really encourage you as you think about this to think about the effect that will have on the public event venues in the state thank you Mr chairman. Thank you Mr mayor any questions from committee members representative Ladyman you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman well I asked a question earlier this reason I ask that question or are you a private or a public entity we are a public entity. What department you belong to we are the Pulaski County multi purpose civic facility it was started the the it was set up under the facility board legislation it was financed by taxpayer money when it was first built a combination of taxpayer money and private money since we've opened we've gotten little or none from the state or the county but we are still considered a public facility. But that's what my attorney arise we regularly follow up recognized what I'm trying to turn on you the operating. The group is a public group is that what you're saying yes Sir thank you. Representative back you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair is your opposition to this bill economics. Are are you saying is to. Wrong thing to do for the people primarily is economic because of that thank you. But the questions from committee members. Sam Nunn thank you Mr merry for your time thank you Mr. Also signed up to speak against the bill is Gretchen Gretchen hall. So if you would just have seat in the table dinner by yourself to the committee and you're recognized to speak against the bill yes Sir thank you Mr chairman and committee members my name's Gretchen hall I am the CEO of the Little Rock convention and visitors bureau we're the tourism and marketing agency for the city of little rock and in addition we operate and manage multiple public facilities here in the capital city including the State House commission center Robinson Center in multiple venues in the river market on just briefly I'm gonna touch on a couple of things that have already been a noted today this bill is simply bad on multiple levels one it's not needed there is no problem that currently exist in any of our facilities. but the cost of infrastructure could potentially be millions for these public agencies it will generate additional negative media resulting in cancelled events boycotts and tremendous economic losses in the future and there's simply no way to manage it and therefore we feel certain it will simply Spahn additional litigation this bill currently affects multiple public convention centers a publicly owned arenas schools as mentioned earlier local community centers state parks city parks and campgrounds alike and also other state agencies one of which you've heard from today with the department of corrections but also agencies like DHS and UAMS and others representative Dotson to your point without monitoring every single individual that using a shared rest room in our public facilities and somehow checking their birth sex there is no way to manage this piece of legislation and then I wanted to briefly touch on questions that representative gene and representative Ladyman asked earlier about a clause I or public private facilities so in the City of Little Rock at the doubletree hotel and the Marriott of little rock the largest hotels those are owned by the city of little rock so those are private facilities there's use me publicly owned facilities under private lease agreements and so our attorney has reviewed this bill and because the term at least is included in it he feels the those two private agencies that are leasing public property would also be held to the standards of this bill as well so that includes two of the largest hotels in little rock and in the state because those two properties are considered public property and then we have additional lease holders within some of our other spaces again private entities that could potentially be. Having to uphold this piece of legislation as well I'll be happy to answer any questions from committee members. J. nine is all thank you for your time thank you. Also signed up to speak against the bill as secretary Stacy Harshman charged. You would just proves judges up to the committee who you're with then you're recognized speak against the bill thank you Mr chair I'm Stacy her secretary of the Arkansas department of parks heritage and tourism we are very concerned that if this bill passes Arkansas would lose conventions concerts big events that generate tourism dollars across the state in communities big and small we're also concerned from a state parks point of view we have fifty two state parks fourteen travel centers for museums we have would have to I don't have an estimate on what the cost would be to a accommodate what would be required after if this bill passes we also have concerns about how we would manage that and North Carolina in terms of the economic impact North Carolina has been mentioned but I also want to bring to your attention that you all know I'm sure well well aware that the state has partnered with the private sector and local communities as well to generate miles of trails far bicycling and cyclists fate will fortunately will play host to the twenty twenty two cyclo cross world championships the only other time this was held in the United States it was held in Little and twenty thirteen and the economic impact generated back then was a conservative five point three million dollars so this stands to be a very nice big event for the northwest Arkansas community there's already been a suggestion and bicycling magazine that the championship be moved are boycotted so this would be a huge loss for Arkansas so unless there is a real and pervasive issue in Arkansas and to my knowledge the. It has not been demonstrated we would urge a no vote on this bill thank you I'm happy to answer questions representative correct you're recognized for a question. Well I'm going to ask you questions you've got my curiosity up now how many transgender people do we have in Arkansas. I'm sorry I do not know the answer to that evidently we have a lot if they carry that much power to make everybody that want to come to Arkansas just because of the minority few I just does my question I mean it seems like that there evidently is a lot of them and they have a big lobby thank you. Thank you Mr. The questions from committee members saying nine take care thank you for your time thank you. Also signed up to speak against the bill is John Wilkerson. Will it be registered by yourself to the committee John you're recognized speak against the bill thanks chair of a committee John Wilkerson general counsel the Municipal League I want the labor made a point that were made but I'll share whichever test fire said that we're worried about the how this is going to work we're about how it's going to how much is going to cost because you break this down it's into two parts is the result combination part and then of course the private right of action part of the bill so we don't know if it means that we're going to have to check birth certificates at at the door we don't know what it means to ask for a reason accommodation because it does say that a government entity shall provide a reasonable accommodation to a person who for any reason as unwilling or unable to use a multi occupancy restroom we don't know if that means a right to build new restrooms or for run it like I said poster or something at the door to make sure that nobody enters the multi Arkansas restroom as far as the private right of action part again right it puts us in a position of five hundred cities and towns to to have to make sure that you know I I think what we worry about is going to have we're at to make sure that no nobody you enter the restaurant it shouldn't be or what the bill says it should be in a restroom so it gives us a lot of problems and I've been writing research here for a while now and a lot of notes and I don't I just don't know how it's going to work for the cities and towns of Arkansas. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question I thank Mr first I'd like to say that you are I have a daughter she's gonna grow now but when she was little I would want a man going into an restaurant facade or whether that would that would greatly concern me course but this bill the way it's written and I'm not an attorney maybe you can help me interpret this but when you said when you're talking about on page two lines. Micellar just lost a place. Twenty one. Okay I'm I'm looking at lines eighteen through twenty three so provide reasonable accommodation a government entity shall provide a reasonable accommodation to a person who that gives but definition for any reason is unwilling or a unable to use a multi occupancy restroom facility and then we define what that is as designated for the person's sex and then you have the same thing down on page three under the penalties lines thirteen. Three fifteen encounters member of the opposite sex in a multi occupancy restroom that is designed for the person sex so. If if this were enacted. And the sale of the state capitol or school or whatever just decided to remove all signs at designated that multi occupancy for someone sex with this law still apply. Right right that's a good question I don't I never thought about it like that I don't know. Okay thank you. Other questions from committee members. She none before like three times picture signed up to speak against the bill is Jayme Broadway. Well what if you would just have a seat in the table device up to the committee. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee shall Broadway with the issue system and mainly speaking here owned in regards to the fiscal impact NO lawyer in terms of of certain aspects to this but the way that we understand in an obviously with institutions across the state just in the A. issue system alone we have a hundred and twelve buildings that we have to maintain that restroom facilities and certainly there would be no way man power wise that we could have staff ensuring that whoever goes in to which what restroom would be the person who is supposed to be going into that facility so in order to facilitate this it is our belief in understanding we would have to reconfigure all of those restroom facilities in order to ensure that we comply with with the bill just an issue system alone that cost would tween restrooms and showers and hundred twelve buildings and and twelve showers would be about five and a half million dollars the Department higher ed sent out a survey to all thirty three institutions late last week when the bill was filed and at last count all the institutions are replied yet but if it were to be required by all it for all institutions it would be about twenty million dollars in terms of improvements that would have to an upgrade that would have to be made part of that is because all of our facilities restroom facilities in older buildings were grandfathered in when the eighty eighty was passed so they have not had been brought up to code if we do have to go back in and add new facilities to comply with the legislation then we would have to bring those facilities up to code so just want to provide that information in terms of the cost aspect Because I take any questions any questions from committee members. Representative you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr so have you done as representative Gonzalez alluded to earlier and removed all those signs with the cost still be as high and that you think it would be as safe at that point that's a good question represent were low I don't know that answer that was the first I just went back in and so as soon again. That that would probably lessen the cost of somewhere I don't know. I'm not the best probably answer the question. So my follow up to that was and and I ask that in my original question by doing that yes the cost would be lower but what about the safety aspect of the we would still have the compliance issue I guess is what I would say represent Wardlaw and still we don't have the personnel power to be able to maintain to ensure the compliance is occurring at all one hundred twelve buildings that help. Somewhat. Recognized for a question. I think I've got a point of order to the chair. Hear me out. The stage okay I know we have a rule in the House on fiscal impact and and dealing with education and and I we keep hearing that a lot of the schools for a will have a fiscal impact I think we need to request a fiscal impact before we. Move on this bill so we'll know what the cost is. In the House rules and the chair so noted. as sponsor of the bill back at the end of the table thank you. Thanks for review at a. Replenishing opposed impact he would to allow Mr Yang to speak to that. Recognized is there You Mister chair so this bill is also ran something similar the lady Senator Collins run this bill four years ago and so the same questions arose and there was uh no fiscal impact requested because if you look on the permissive part on the the Page three and even Pitsch. Sorry. Oh sorry Page two line eighteen about reasonable accommodation so if you were to just read it as the government entity shall provide reasonable accommodation period in the prior would be a fiscal impact but there's no language that requires the government entity or in this case University telling as as was said to do all these things that only happens when there is a request made and the request them to submit a written request is be reasonable accommodation and they got to go to this process before any any changes made so it's not as if this bill were passed into law that all university with all of a sudden had to have to have the different types of changing facilities. Representative gene but the word is shall provide reasonable accommodations yeah they shall is that you will provide yes and shall and then it list but the multiple things that have to happen before they shall do that. James J. Apollo. Okay representative Gonzalez thank Mr what a shame what you're the into the table could you address my concerns that are brought up earlier because it really does concern me that if if this passes that. People just remove all signs in an open up all restrooms for for everyone and I know that that's not the intent of this bill and I know that's not what I want would would want to see happen so can can you. What they said to just that point I guess I have two points is you know we're talking about the. People will use the facility of their a biological sex and so in your instance that that wouldn't be possible without any signage a to a not to dismiss your question but I think it's easy to get into the parade of horrible is on on bills like these was a but that mention in North when North Carolina passed the Senate was implemented there weren't weren't these issues Tennessee has a referred that addresses this there are these issues in Mississippi has one that actually has criminal penalties and it doesn't the and these things haven't happened either. Committee members. That's on the table at this time from representative gene that we need to address representative correction Mr Yang I appreciate your explanation but as chair of this committee which my understanding that requested men may propose call impact statement that was so stated in testimony from the department of corrections along with other state is determined so What I suggested we do a touch pad with the fiscal impact statement break back before this committee and then we will resume testimony at that time. Thank you Mr chair thank you Committee and pray for the little girls. Committee members moving under moved to read and. Senator Davis I know you patient in waiting for some time but we appreciate that. You're recognized yes you and representative gray recognized president Senate bill six one four. We do have an amendment to this bill The Amendment spam passed out of it. Davis you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you Mr chairman or the committee and this amendment and just goes throughout the bill includes that words criminal history along with criminal record this is to ensure that and they're in state out of state background checks and criminal history searches and then the amendment also more clearly defines what a disqualifying offenses so initially we just had a felony or misdemeanor in their. But we narrowed the definition and to ensure that it was a misdemeanor that was related to fraudulent behavior in some way and that's really the purpose of this bill and is to help prevent fraudulent behavior and signature gathering and so we thought that it was at more appropriate to narrow it and you're a misdemeanor down to those specific misdemeanor offenses. Members presentation of the amendment we have a motion to adopt the representative makes any discussion on the motion to adopt. Hey none all in favor say aye. There's a new. You know I can present Senate bill six one four as amended thank you. So this bill just deals with paid canvassers in a way that is meant to protect the integrity of our ballot initiative process it guards against fraud and a few different ways it requires US in Arkansas residency it prohibits banking the service on a person that you're basis and ensures that that have already broken the law are not interested with changing our laws are changing the Arkansas constitution. It also helps ensure that our canvassing process survives legal challenge and with amended the background check provision and we and have also included provisions that align us with other states in regards to the residency requirements and that collecting signatures and pain on a person insure basis rather it also follows eight court an eight circuit court precedent the new provisions in this bill are patterned after similar provisions and that other states have used that have already survived legal challenges. It also includes a severability clause in case any parts of the bill are stricken and and there's an emergency clause with that we'll take any questions any questions from committee members representative makes you're recognized thank you Mr chairman senator thank you for bringing this bill I I do support the one question I have is. you're requiring the canvassers to be a resident of the state not necessarily opposed to that restriction but I'm wondering if there was any legal purpose for any purpose other than we just don't want to other folks decide our Kansans doing this yeah I mean I think it's important and that we have our Kansans collecting signatures I mean we're talking about changing our state constitution we do it regularly we do it often too often yes and I think it's important like the that process was set up to ensure that people have a voice and a method of getting something on the ballot and that they are passionate about that it was really like a grassroots effort to get something on the ballot by Arkansas citizens that process has been abused for far too long so what we see is people coming in from out of state being paid on a personal basis and sometimes being paid knowing that they have a disqualifying offense but there they collect signatures and then pass it off to somebody who does not have a disqualifying offense and they say and they turn their signatures and and that's wrong that's fraudulent and that's not the way that we should be allowed to go about changing our state constitution so yes I mean that requirement is in there for very specific reasons and that it and its because this process is meant to be a process for Kansans and to help with the grassroots effort to get something on the ballot to be changed our state constitution or by initiated act during the call of thank you for not necessarily follow up but last election cycle I was approached by canvassers from towers asked him from New Jersey Tennessee and one or two other state so I appreciate that being in there and I have a motion at the proper time. Any further questions from committee members representative of. Thank you Mr chair so let me give an example so I can. Trying to see how this bill is working so if if I had. Say a brother who had a marijuana charge. In and now he's working to get recreational marijuana on the ballot would he be able to be a campus. I think that dread that charges the violation of drug or narcotic or narcotic laws and that's a disqualifying offense okay so. Sullivan share recognized. So why would why would that be a qualifying offense I mean. Tell me the nexus between. Having a drug charge in the in the campus center. How do you how do you reconcile the two. And well if if if you're yeah I mean willing to break the law on something as big as drug charges then I think that shows the willingness to do or and ability to and. Participate in fraudulent behavior and that's what we're trying to avoid and signature gathering. The non. Okay it further questions from committee members. C. none we've got two people signed up to speak against the bill. Tell Pattillo. You would just have a seat in the table defy yourself to the committee you're recognized speak up against the bill. The morning. My name is Kay said AA put the yes what is everybody M. I'm really nervous so hopefully I can get through this but I think it these bill is really close to my heart and because this is one of the shows that I started working engaging in civic Currently working as the deputy director with Arkansas United and we had Arkansas United having doing nonpartisan city it's a B. C. three civic invocation work with Arkansas in Arkansas to address the information and language access gaps that we have historically being berries for the Arkansas supporters important in our state the rich waters we have have to employ campuses who can do door to door and make calls to our community sometimes the community does not even know what they can come to us so we have to make the commitment to going to them all of our time but there's that legally employed but not all of them are citizenship I thank west a back in the day. We have higher level of permanent residence individuals with legal work permits like back to the very individuals though you'll have done so much to help the session. Last week we became aware of as B. six fourteen and we have asked another Davis to amend the citizenship clause to also include let a permanent residents and those with work permits placed back on. We are Arkansas United have the largest building what workforce in the state hucal offered these language assistant in civic invocation which is necessary for our new Arkansas voters to make informed decisions about constitutional amendment Rep would respectfully ask this committee do not limit our efforts to help Arkansas citizens to vote. So thank you so much and I have I share a little bit about me before I add with the condenser once and I wesat resident when I was doing commencing program and I was a man and a and other state but is still it was part of of my career and also was tried to it can make me look at something pernicious in our community thank you so much thank you any questions from committee members saying none. Thank you so much for your testimony next week against the bill is nail Matthews. Would have saved in the table in a five set up to the committee you're recognized speak against the bill. I'm no Matthews I represent the league of women voters of Arkansas and nonpartisan group that's been in existence for over a hundred years we work on voter rights voter education hopefully you participated in candidate forms when you were running for office that were sponsored by the league and we do vote for one one which is an online voter education for all of Arkansas. So today I speak against SB six fourteen the bill that would require Arkansas at canvassers to be Arkansas residents have spotless background checks and would dictate the way that they can be paid our legislatures legislators afraid to allow Arkansas voters to weigh in on constitutional issues seventy two percent of Arkansas's polled want the power to put forth accent amendments over two thirds of the voters approved a minimum wage increase however this was so repugnant to some the bills were introduced in the next legislative session to exempt many of the workers fortunately those failed and the vote of the people was affirmed. Two ballot initiatives non partisan redistricting commission an open primaries with instant runoff elections were blocked by interpretation differences and per or poorly worded requirements passed by legislatures. So S. be six fourteen is just another attempt to quash any efforts by the public to have a say in the governance of the state and is unfair if only Arkansas residents should be allowed to hold a job in this state maybe you should not allow them to have outsiders to come in to have concert to play baseball or runs rides at the community at county fairs or act in place and no worker should ever be paid more for doing more. I mean that's what you're saying. I can tell you that the league of women voters in Illinois he wanted to have a redistricting independent redistricting commission Illinois you know as a democratic run state. And. They wanted an independent redistricting commission they tried three times to pass a ballot initiative and it was not it did not pass the first time the second time it passed the third time it passed each time it was struck down by the. Judge that found some little something in it that they decided man it was invalid the first couple of times the money came from outside sources as well as in the state the third time it was run entirely by the league of women voters it costs them over a million dollars tell me any organization any civic social organization here in Arkansas that can raise a million dollars to do a ballot initiative and then take just a million dollars it takes about three million dollars to run a ballot initiative and you're saying well it's okay we'll just have it be grass roots it just it you're going to kill it if you do that so if you set up conditions so that all groups must go to to all volunteer labor how about you apply the same standards to your campaigns with every legislator passed the requirement for spotless backgrounds with no misdemeanors canvassers already undergo background checks and no one with a felony is hired. None to expand this to misdemeanors is frankly unconstitutional so please stop with these oppressive bills that only served to take away our Kansans right their constitutional rights and that's my statement. Asian from committee members. A nun thank you for your time. Davis. You're recognized close with your bill. Thank you Mr chair and I do want to clarify this bill does not pertain to better education issues so if and people and communities are going door to door and speaking with voters about and different things available to them that does not become illegal under this bill the specifically deals with constitutional amendments initiated acts and has nothing to do with even local. You know taxes are millage increases or anything like that on the ballot and that excludes this and again this bill is just to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the integrity of our ballot initiative process and we have one of them and more open I would say and processes in the country which is why I think we see so many people coming in our state and cycle after cycle trying to change our constitution because they can bring big money from out of state and bringing people and who are not qualified should not be qualified to collect signatures and to get something on the ballot and maybe people like I said before the half disqualifying offenses and whether they have criminal records in our state or other states also allowing them to be paid on a person at your basis just simply encourages fraudulent behavior what's paying by the hour or some other way that to pay him on a personal basis encourages them and to get as many signatures as possible by any means possible that's fraudulent behavior that we're looking to discourage here so and again members thank you for your time and attention this matter and I ask for a good vote. Davis is close with the bill. Any puts pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion do pass as amended any discussion on the motion do pass as amended. Operative lab you're recognized for discussion on the motion do pass as amended so I ask the question in regards to someone having a felony. Ellen the conviction and and then going on to try to get the signatures and asking for specific reason because. People should not have to the receive a felony they should not have to serve a life sentence this is almost like serving a life sentence by banning people who have had previous felonies. Felony convictions. From having a gainful employment I I don't understand why we continue to want people to get out of prison and team will and if they have an opportunity to actually work at something and actually make honest money then we would take that away from them and so with that being said I I don't think I would I would support this bill and so with that I ask for a no vote thank you. Any further discussion on the motion. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chair I'd just like to say I'm. Sympathetic to what representive love a sand but Felons are already excluded from that that's old language in this bill and I think it's very important that we protect Arkansas citizens. when we're giving out this much information about somebody other information that you have to give you know your your address and all that on on these ballot measures are I think it's important thinks it's a good bill I appreciate a good vote. Any further discussion on the motion. Shame none all in favor as amended Faye I'm. All opposed say no graduation your bill is passed. Committee members that we got two more on the agenda representative bank you want to run your bill. Representative back you're recognized run house bill eighteen sixty six thank you Mr chair okay I have I can just take a breath and relate this is an easy bill basically what this bill does is it says that as an Election Commission whether to state or county that you get your money from government entities you can't get a grant from the non government entity and that related to the election Sullivan says one of the only question I've had from anyone on this was okay W. limiting grants that could be used to four elections they were actually not we're just saying that those who go to the county officials if the if it's permitted whatever the grantee as in in the county officials could then give it to the election it just creates a little bit of a barrier there to make sure that our election commissioners who are the people who run our elections cannot accept funds from anyone other than government entities. Representative Beck is presented is bill Andy any questions from committee members. Representative production you're recognized thank you Mr chair just quick question on this is this prohibiting election commissioners from receiving gifts or the board itself as a whole from paying for stuff with. Gifts from outside in the board let's do that the actual board of this actually was originated from there were some grants as you guys know that we're given And on the our election and Election Commission brought this to me said that he was asked to sign that application that person should never have to sign the application for that grant so that's thank you about. Further questions from committee members saying no no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative back you're recognized because we bill I'll close from bill and recommend due pass. Representative back is close may recommendation of do pass any discussion on the motion saying none all in favor say aye All opposed say no congratulates your bill is passed. Let's not overlook one we've got one last bill committee members thank you for having and up today it's representative Payton representative Payton. Thank you Mr thank you colleagues I'll be is briefers long as you want me to be here just based on a question on questions but house bill seventeen eighty nine. it gives the intent there on page one it says to ensure maximum cooperation between federal employees and local law enforcement so basically this is trying to establish. What the US constitution RT set forth in that is that the county sheriff is recognized as the. Highs law enforcement officer in the county and so if federal authorities are going to come into Arkansas in it And operate within the county as far as exercising warrants an arrest that needs to be coordinated through the sheriff's office local knowledge can be so important in making sure that the right doors one kicked in or the easiest path of arresting somebody can be handled may be at the grocery store the or a restaurant that they attend every morning for breakfast or something like that rather than having A military action basically and by federal agency in Arkansas it does not block the road it gives several workarounds it also allows the shares Association. I had some requested I amended the bill to allow for a memo memorandum of understanding between the sheriff and the federal agencies it does not cover any enclaves of federal authority in the state Arkansas they still get the opportunity to operate under federal parks the way they currently do if there's reason to suspect that the cooperation would jeopardize the investigation they can go through the journey General's office I can go on and on but we we gave several workarounds the prosecuting attorneys were concerned at one point and I I change some shells the maze so it's a may prosecute it's not a shall prosecute and so I'll just stop and field any questions that you have. Representative love you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair and. So representative Payton I submitted this to my share but before I give you his response. Blasis be unnecessary what what is it what is the current process something well so I think it's necessary because I have faith that our cities in our counties and our state police are sufficient to enforce the laws in Arkansas and that if a federal entity is seeking to take law enforcement action that they should coordinate that and I've been told by most of them that they do been contacted by some of federal parks authorities and they say you know we don't need this we already do it and and the question is if you already done it then there should be no problem this does make allowance for like customs and immigrations authority things that the U. S. constitution sets out as federal responsibilities it does make allowance for them to do that of course of a federal law enforcement officer sees a crime in progress or you know something that requires immediate action this this gives space for them to to act or react in that instant but when when there's a known. Reason to get a warrant and to go not down and our cans and store I think local knowledge is a very very. Valuable asset in making sure that that's done safely is done correctly and as the intent here says all authority says it Prevent misadventure affecting Arkansas citizens and their rights their result from a lack of cooperation and that's basically what it's for is to prevent misadventure. Thank you. Representative make sure recognized I have a question in the fall of Mister John so I I I I I like the intent of where you're going here that I have two questions the first one relates to the supremacy clause so if a federal marshal is coming to an active arrest based upon a federal warrant that federal marshal under Arkansas law would review required to get the okay lawful share for consult with the local sheriff I'm understanding this correctly but would federal law president. Preempt that necessary Partnership if you will so I would like to written this bill in a way that it included the chief of police in the city level of the state police you know at the state level the reason it only talks about the sheriff is because the US constitution recognizes the sheriff and the constables and their position in law enforcement so therefore to to prevent violating the supremacy clause I kept it very narrowly tailored tailored to to the position that the US constitution recognizes as the highest the law enforcement authority in the county and that is the share of. Follow up. Correct and and reading this bill I think this is my concerns been addressed what if it's the sheriff who is the person who is the person of interest and for whatever reason just as much as we like to think that all of our share for about board every once in awhile there's a bad apple so would the federal Marshall have to consult with the sheriff before resting the sheriff the sheriff is indeed the person who's or I think you mentioned the Attorney General so they can go to the attorney general's office and also get the same same permission I read that correctly you read that correctly but also you need to keep in mind the Arkansas state police are not restricted by this our Kansans and other law enforcement that is this state local law enforcement enforcement would still have open rain to to get hold of a bad sheriff for bad deputy or something like that it does save that if there's reason to believe that notifying the sheriff would jeopardize the investigation that you can go through the attorney general's office and that's important and and notifying the sheriff may jeopardize investigation not because it's the sheriff or deputy but because it's somebody that the sheriff's protecting you know so that's written pretty broadly in this bill to give a workaround but we're only talking about federal authorities I would hope that Arkansas and and other local authorities and state police would be sufficient in taking action against a bad chair for bad Conglomerate that that might have control of the sheriff's office and one more follower Mr you're recognized and then the last one the bill allows for prosecution of a federal employee who does this in violation of this war pass can you kind of talk to us how you see that working in what the potential penalties could be for that federal employee. Honestly. I don't that's what we had to change it to a may. So it it you know it's a warning it's a shot across the bow honestly we may have run up against this of privacy clause there on part prosecution okay. Do Payton the if it. If the federal agency prior to To get the letter of agreement with the for the sheriff's department and then just say it was an oversight or you know they just weren't comfortable at that time or but it was determined later that they should have. But at any rate thank due process or the As for law enforcement investigation of that case would anyway would that calls a dismissal of those charges. I'm not attorney enough to answer that I don't personally don't think so but you know we've seen technicalities used in ways that the I'm not sure you can no. The answer to that question. The questions from committee members. Saying none representative Payton who you're ready because we bill yes thank you and now. Members. I know. To read the title and and to to see the content. May have a knee jerk reaction of all well this is big it really has very little teeth in it. When it is up to a prosecutor to try to prosecutor anything but I do believe it's important. When the US constitution recognizes the sheriff and goes even further than that our founders were not comfortable with federal authorities having free reign in the state that was left up to the states to handle that and this. Is not near as big of an ordeal is what some people may perceive it to be and and I'm glad to know I haven't run into a bunch opposition or bungee emails of when Scott Bradlee's sent this out to the seventy five sheriff's half of well a little over half of his responses were favorable in support of the bill so it was a slim majority I think you got twenty three responses thirteen where yes and ten or no from the sheriff's but I think it's important that when we a lecture in our seventy five counties that they know the responsibilities of the position they're running for. It is a lot bigger position than what what people realize when it's basically the only a knowledge mint in the U. S. constitution of of our. Stand if we need to against federal overreach so I see this is a bill that it reinforces the sheriff's position I appreciate a good vote. The representative Payton is close with the bills made a motion for a do pass absolutely thank you motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no congratulates you bills passed. Committee members that concludes today's meeting this meeting is adjourned thank you very much.