Judiciary Committee- House

And for the record the chair sees a quorum. You're recognized Speaker. Thank you madam chair thank you committee members. Members for you have you have Senate bill six twenty two as you can see it's it it's titled an act allowing release from prison for certain offenders until the offender's serve at least eighty percent of his or her sense creating penalties for false reporting to law enforcement and then creating a registry and for other purposes I don't think I have to go back and give a history of what may be brings us to this point but suffice it to say there's been discussion over the last year to two years about taking a bill similar to this and this was an effort between myself and represent Dalby Senator Hickey and senator Clark along with many others to try and come up with some bill that could address the issue we understand that so depending on who you talk to many groups will say that forty seven states have laws similar to this and three don't in Arkansas being one of those you know I think this is an issue that is certainly before is it's been an issue that's been brought up it's been much talked about there's been I'm sure each of you have heard much much from your constituents and many others both for and against and you know from a leadership perspective we've attempted to come up with something that could pass that could pass both the house and Senate that could also be substantive and could also be substantial and let me say at the outset if anybody thinks this is a sham or a farce or that this is anything less than a serious piece of legislation I can tell you that that's just flat out wrong I think everybody on this committee knows me knows the fact that if I don't offer legislation for the sake of just merely trying to pull something over on the membership rove on the public this is a serious piece of legislation that would ask that the committee and and all others treated as such this bill in front of you as you can see it essentially creates I heightened penalty that is available to prosecutors and judges in the event that a group or class is targeted with certain criminal offenses and before you can see that this well it's important to say we don't create any new criminal offense there's no no new crime created if you look at page two this applies or can apply in the certain circumstances those would be murder in the first degree murder in the second degree battery in the first degree aggravated assault terroristic threatening a felony offense terroristic act and arson as well as unlawful discharge of a firearm and additionally as to an attempt to solicitation or conspiracy to commit one of those offenses if it is in fact a felony itself there is no new criminal offense created and so I want to say that at the outset so anybody has creek that individuals with criminal liability for those offenses and I think we can all agree those the most serious offenses probably in Arkansas law are among the most serious offenses under Arkansas law. Those individuals with criminal liability today have that liability after this bill they still have that criminal liability and know what there's no additional offenses create. So that's important to note now in the instance where the victim was purposely selected. Based upon them being a member of a or being associated with a group or class recognizable identifiable group or class you sure mental physical biological cultural political religious beliefs or characteristics then in that case. In that case the prosecutor has the opportunity to seek this delayed release or this requirement that they serve at least eighty percent of their time. So how does that work and what does that look like again no no criminal offense and individuals would be charged for the underlying offense that we see here a prosecutor then could also make the determination that they that this is one and that this an offense created under an aggravating circumstance such as defined on page one an individual be tried on the merits of the underlying offense that's outlined if they're convicted then the prosecutor could bring forth this additional information the jury could determine whether whether that's appropriate and in those circumstances it's not that the Senate's changes again there some concern that you know one of the criticisms sometimes it's applied to hate crimes bills or otherwise is what you're creating different sentences for different perpetrators are based on who the victim is the sentences are unchanged the sentence is the same it's within the discretion of the of the of the finder of within the judicial judicial branch but what we say is in this bill if you're convicted under those circumstances at a minimum you're going to serve eighty percent of your of your sentence before you're eligible for parole. Now some would say well under other under other proposals we actually would suggested that individuals would would serve a longer term. But I believe if you compare what actually is in paper here in Senate bill six twenty two this is actually a more substantial in all actuality it is a more substantial punishment for these offenses than what's been proposed another bills. Right now under Arkansas law depending on the offense there are varying requirements as to your main mandatory minimum sentence some of go from a sixth all the way up to seventy percent I've actually run that the numbers and based on the average sentence length and what individuals are actually serving up for the vast majority these offenses this would likely be a thirty to forty percent increase in terms of what actual time would be Sir would that would have been served by the offender so it's it is a substantive bill again that gets back to what I said at the outset this is a serious bill it's a substantive bill. Now I know there's been a lot of a lot of talk about why not identify certain classes. The fair question I think we all understand we're kidding ourselves we don't understand really what the issues are here there are those that want to identify certain classes there those that don't want to identify certain classes if we were to identify certain client classes then the question would be what classes would you identify that would be part of the discussion. And what I can say is it's my belief. That if you look at any class that's protected under any hate crime law in any state across the United States that I believe that virtually all if not all of those classes would be protected under this bill so this bill is comprehensive. But the beauty of this bill is that it does not elevate one class over the other if you're targeted or an individual is targeted based on their class or group then they potentially have the protection of this bill the prosecutor has this tool available to them your target because you're a Christian this bill protects you if you're targeted because you're black this bill would protect you if you're targeted because you're homosexual this bill would protect you the list goes on and on and on now we can come up and people can suggest hypotheticals to say well what about this group what about that group well I've looked at some of this information occurred because I've or even going back to when this issue was originally raised you know if you look at a lot of the states across the country and you look at their loss many of them don't protect some of the groups that committee today are demanding that we protect in Arkansas and yet bill proposes to protect all of those groups. And so I think that's an important an important point to be made. I think that when it gets to focusing on group or class I think that it also allows this allows this bill to stand the test of time. You know what if you look and there's a lot of different charts if you look at other states. Many states don't protect sexual orientation they don't protect gender identity many don't protect H. committee don't protect political affiliation. The list goes on and on and on many don't protect religious worship our bill protects all of those things all those characteristics again because we're focusing on classes or groups across the board. And just as I know that gender identity has been an issue that's been much talked about around this bill or other bills. I think it would be fair to say that maybe twenty years ago it would be difficult price for legislature to proceed that maybe that would be a group or class that needed an extra protection but the thing about this is our bill not only protects that group or class protects all groups or classes and no matter what comes up into the future if twenty years from now there some other group of classes particularly being targeted guess what our bill provides that type of protection and I think that's very fair I think that's an even handed waited to do this to provide these protections and I think it makes sense I think it's a common sense solution to this and it's something that as we've seen I think it's something that that can be supported now I understand that there are opponents this both from the left to the right I think it's been interesting we've I feel like I've of being opposed of its created unity among among groups that I never thought I would see you see I don't issues but you know what that's okay and I respect the comments have been provided I respect the opposition to the bill but at the end of the day what we try to present is a bill that makes sense for Arkansas that are Kansas could be proud of and that is a common sense Arkansas solution that to try to address this issue. if we go on through the bill again I touched on the fact that it report provides for the requirement to serve eighty percent of your sentence. You can see that there are some protections and some of these things or another other bills that you saying other bills have been filed it's not just that you have an abstract believe you actually have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a purposely selected that individual based on their group or class. You can see that there are certain provisions to try and really focus and that this this this this is focused on these particular criminal acts and is not designed to be expanded beyond the scope of this particular criminal conduct. there's been much talk in this is been found another bills but we because of the fact that these are very serious offenses in because of the fact that that these types of crimes hat are the I mean there they inflammatory to us this is as a society I think it's serious and it would make sense that we provided just reiterate really what's already in the law that we're not gonna you know if you purposely or knowingly make a false report or a prosecutor law enforcement tries to make something into one of these offenses that they know is not the case that that's something that also subject to some criminal liability but those provisions are found in other bills have been proposed again I think that goes the fact that we're trying to to really emphasize the fact that these these crimes are serious they are crimes that again are inflammatory to our society and getting back to the bill itself I believe that we've covered those crimes and provided a protections in a very comprehensive and substantive way then finally we create a registry of certain sentencing orders this is something so that we are able to keep up with when these crimes occur and this is information is relevant relevant for law enforcement both of the state and federal level. In closing you know what I think we would probably all have heard much about. About the this bill about other bills about what's going on in other states about other ideas I would just ask this bill to be judged on the merits you know I've been asked about is it hate crimes or is it not some people say it's a hate crime bill some people say it's not I think that when I approach legislation I just take the bill for what it is on its face and I would ask you to evaluate it on its face for what it does I believe it's a serious bill I believe it's a bill that's right for Arkansas and I realize there may be some that will say well it's to pay some people say it's too vague would probably not want to be anymore specific. Some may say well it's going to be unconstitutional well act that we passed a presumptively constitutional virtually everything we do. Could potentially be subject to court challenge just in terms of of litigation or otherwise and you know what if it struck down at the end of the day that's I mean that's the separation of powers the legislature makes laws the executive in forces the judiciary judiciary interprets and applies the law and if for some reason it was struck down well then we know this just doesn't work we believe working with bill are working with the bill drafters that we put a bill that could withstand put forth a bill that would withstand a court challenge but you know at the end of the day I just believe this is the right bill for us it's a bill that we can pass a bill that we can put on the books it's a bill that we can that we can say unequivocally protects groups or classes here in the state of Arkansas in a substantive way in a serious way and with that I'd be glad to take any questions. Representative Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Speaker I'm hiding behind and thank you very much for the presentation it was helpful I want to talk with you a little bit about you know you mentions not listing out not enumerating certain classes or activities that would be protected and I just kind of want to ask a little bit more about that I think you're right that twenty years ago I don't think anybody would have been talking about including an attribute like gender identity in the bill but I think that one of the functions the law serves is by signaling to people what values we hold what's important to us what deserves protection so so while I understand your concern for wanting to make sure that everybody is covered I would push back a little bit because I think that listing out attributes that we want to protect from being targeted does cover everybody if you list out race if you list out sex sexual orientation gender identity that means if you have a race you are protected if you have a sexual orientation or protected in other words everybody is still protected so by listing out classes it accomplishes what you what you want to accomplish right it protects everybody but it doesn't leave room for for the potential for abuse and I guess that's kind of what I'd like to hear from you a little bit more on if we are allowing prosecutors to bring these you know for for anybody who is a member of any class is obviously a very vague description what signal a two questions I guess a with similar reasoning as legislators about who we think it is going to be the target of these types of crimes and deserves protection and be how do we make sure that we're not protecting the types of folks that I think we as a legislature don't want to protect you know is how we make sure the prosecutors not is going to run away with it thanks K. very good questions you know I think that with regard to the groups that if we get into a discussion discussion about specific groups I think that leads just to to the unanswered questions of which groups do we protect and which do we not I mean if you look across the country. There are many many laws that many states to protect a number of different characteristics for qualifications but then you look at Utah has a very broad bill that thank include maybe California close homelessness thank you talk close matriculation which I think is I think that's where you go to college I believe so you get in this discussion about who you include who do not include in my view as far as for those that that have specific groups that want to make sure included I would just say that it does it should we should we go to try and bring certain groups into the fold even at the expense of leaving other groups out or is it more important actually passed something that substantive that can be applied to the question about prosecutors and and what I would also say that I think we're emphasizing the the inclusiveness and the values that all groups or classes would be protected for prosecutors I think this is at it's a cliche but it's tool in the toolbox and you know we can try to come up with hypotheticals of situations where individuals are targeted based upon groups that are not groups that we would find appealing to us or not groups that would that we generally it's society want to promote or that we generally accept but I would say a couple things one I think that those targeting instances fairly minimal and secondly I just think that that's what prosecutor has that discretion to say this is not an instance where I want to apply this I think the the greater good that's about available in this bill is that if there are groups that maybe you're not there they're not prevalent they're not they don't rise to level of getting the attention of the Arkansas legislature or some other you know are they don't have a lobbying effort to include them or or that we have the ability if there are groups that are that are specifically targeted that now we have a tool that is available to prosecutors to utilize and to make sure that those. Richer classes are are included I know that some of the port proponents that it you know I could argue this type of legislation both sides of the issue so to speak I mean for me at the end of the day it's you know it's to pull that these crimes do have a chilling effect and the community they are alarming to communities when when individuals are targeted based on this but then also it is about the fact that when when you see what the tide the tide that is approaching across the United States and trying to do to make sure that at in Arkansas we send the right message in the right signals I feel like it's time has come but you know regardless of of what group or classes targeted if you're targeted for whatever reason for you know it's one thing it's one thing when you have a crime that's that's because of maybe a drug deal gone wrong we can probably feel like well as long as I'm not involved in illegal activity I'm safe but when people are targeted based on a group or class whether it's one of those that is included in in in in other bills that are filed here or another state it has a chilling effect on on the community itself and so I think that the danger of trying to look to list those groups is the list very legitimate you you leave out very legitimate you leave out very legitimate classes that deserve protection and I think that we can't foresee what the group for classes that will be targeted in the future but we're erring on the side of providing protection to those groups or classes and you know if you look if you go down the list of states with regard to hate crimes laws there are many groups or classes that that. Probably of you know maybe we could find agreement on that Hey this is something we think should be protected they're many states don't provide those protections and and yet we're stepping up to the plate here in Arkansas to provide those protections in a comprehensive way and I feel like this is something that even even that you know virtually any law that's passed there's there can always be you know maybe a hypothetical or an instance where it we worked we were concerned about does it get applied in the right way I think that's where we have to trust or prosecutors and I think that also you know prosecutors publicly elected and so is is a prosecutor gonna trying to apply this in a way it's unpopular within the community I think that I think that there's enough the just the that's part of what prosecutors do in the again this is giving them a tool in the toolbox. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you senator the end thank you Mr Speaker so I guess if you could talk a bit more about the the constitutional issue the vagueness issue because I understand that you know in a certain way all all bills all laws are or presume Constitutional until proven otherwise in your separation parents that are but there's a real specific issue with this one about the vagueness that's obviously been talked about quite a bit what is it in this bill as compared to the case law that makes you think that it'll pass constitutional muster if you could talk a little bit more details I'm sure it's been looked at by the sponsors. So you know I think the starting point that where we approach the bill from was the idea is really to say it's it's a group or class I mean that's what we're really trying to identify but. Clearly just saying a group or class that part that would be that would be Probably leave is open to to greater attack with regard to the constitutionality and so we tried to elaborate in a way that we felt like would cover would cover the the waterfront so to speak with regard to what those groups and classes are again you know there's no guarantees with regard to this I mean if I if if I certainly hope and believe it will be found could be constitutional but at the end of the day you know I understand as an attorney you know unless I'm the judge I I have no idea what's going to actually happen you know so there are no sure things I I recognize that in and certainly have respect for the judicial branch in that they'll apply the law and that's what our system is you know one time it had it had a judge tell one of our fellow legislators it was kind of worried about trying to get into the minutia of the constitution I'd like you don't worry about your jobs pass law will sort it out that's where I feel like we're at I feel like that we're stating a we're making a policy statement in this and we're expressing what our intent in our will is and the it hopefully the court will agree that we stated in a way that can be defended and can be enforced but if that's not the case then the court will either give guidance in that opinion or will go back to the drive through the drawing board it can have that discussion again but you know I think that it's why we tried we tried pass certainly want to try and pass laws that are that are constitutional in which I would never trying to represent something from the standpoint of the thank you Matt look this isn't going to pass muster but you know we've done what we can and and that's the best we can again I mean there's the politics of a play in this I think we all understand that it's about developing a consensus and trying to pull together to be able to get eighteen on the Senate in fifty one on the house in the bill to pass this and that's that's the that's the this is it's a political process I mean that's what's at play here but at the end of the day even being in a political process I think we have a product. That we can be proud of and that you know we we can we can utilize if the court tells us that it's not right or they have a problem with it then we can we can address that at that time consider that and determined do we want to do we want to make five revisions based on that what we want to go another direction or do we want to leave it as it is I mean that's that those are the things in at you know every session we have those issues that come up but I feel like we've done the best that we can. Representative McCall you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr Speaker are the words identifiable and recognizable defined the Bill. They're not define. follow up please manager you're recognized for a follow up thank you. It just seems to be that these are or or group or class with no definition and I worry about those words because I worry about whether. Person would have to be determined to be black enough for gay enough for Jewish enough. And you know my fear is also about prosecutors not willing to risk other convictions being overturned I know that representative Collins spoke about that but could you just maybe talk about those words and that issue the good questions you know I think that with regard recognizable identifiable I think that the. My recollection is that that the court would would likely apply what they're what they're plain understood meanings are clearly we can't define every we can't define every. You know. Large word that in the bill we've tried that we feel like those words are can be commonly understood identified but we have tried to define when it comes to aggravating circumstance and delayed release and purposely selected the victim we tried to really explain in detail what those words mean but ultimately with regard to the to work you ask about I think that's just something for the court to I would hope they would apply just their common understood terminology R. as to the Second quick second question we're if you don't remind me again which I think I was just about prosecutors again I'm just touching on that and you can you answer that well that was just hour and that's I think that's something that that you know prosecutor would would have would have to wait again I think it's just another tool in the toolbox that's available to for prosecutors to utilize in the event that that one of these crimes occurs in their judicial district and I think that you know as with. Probably any other piece of criminal legislation we pass I think that's that's part of what prosecutors do it's my I I don't know there may be some of prosecution association out here I believe that last I understood they were neutral on the bill that there is not been you know nobody's come to me with a specific issue I don't recall I recommend specific specific issue as far as the technical aspect of that we did a man in the Senate in to try to clarify that what the eighty percent meant and that was trying to work with the with the the division of corrections to make sure that there was clear that was but the yeah I think with regard to those words I think they're playing meeting would be applied and I think just as with anything else we passed prosecutors would have to wait is this a situation to apply in the pros and cons involved in making a charging decision based on that. Representing Smith you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair thank you Mr Speaker but being here today to present Senate bill. Six twenty two I. I have been reading different comments by some of the. Colleagues on the Senate end and I just want your reaction or response to Senator Chesterfield calling Senate bill six twenty two a placebo. And I think if I'm not mistaken Senator Elliott had mentioned that a bill that does not contain. The terms hate crime is not a hate crimes bill so can you respond to that well it I mean I have tremendous respect for both consider Chesterfield Senator Elliot and course of work with them for many years in the legislature you know I I'm not sure I'm not sure how to how to respond with regard to the to the specifically the terminology of hate crime and whether it's in there or not I would have to look back at I'm not sure I don't know if. Well I have to go back and look as far as what other states and other bills say whether they use the term right crime many probably use it in the title we've you know we've just chosen not to utilize that term quite honestly because at this with with everything that's gone on over the past six months to a year just in terms of legislation proposed in and there's. I mean the it's almost at. The terminologies but almost become larger than the substance of what's in the bill and that's why this would come back to for the the issue about what what is what is what the terminology is I would just ask members to judge it based on the substance of the bill and even though we don't use the term hate crime again there are there are many groups it on both sides of the issue some will say it is a hate crime bill some will say it's not I think that illustrates the fact that does it really matter whether you can come up with the one or two two word explanation to describe it what really matters is what's in the bill and so that's what I think my response would be just to for for all legislators to just judge it on the merits of what's actually in the bill okay thank you Mr Speaker. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank you Mr Speaker for being here to present this bill for us today You've mentioned a couple of times it in in terms of trying to figure out the interpretation of the provisions of this bill that that prosecutors will be empowered to sort of use it and in a way that is flexible for their districts and in the hope that judges will interpret in a way that does not result in it being determined as being void for vagueness or otherwise and constitutional could you talk to me a little bit about whether or not those groups prosecutors judges and I you mentioned a little bit of communication with the prosecutors association but the by N. or the outreach to those groups to make sure that we're presenting a bill that's as tight as possible I know that they're not always on the same page but and a unite both know that lawyers like herding cats sometimes and then also on the other side of that because I think this bill really kind of has to interested groups of people are more really because you've got the judges and prosecutors will be hearing these cases then you've got members of marginalized communities and whether or not there's any outreach to any of those marginalized communities to see how they thought this bill might affect. So you know with regard to the interaction with judges or prosecutors I mean we have had a limited amount of interaction after the bill was filed with prosecutors I would. You know I would just say that. To my yard my recollection I haven't had a prosecutor come to me asking me to run the bill or run any other bill of US of similar type it so we've actually had to go out and affirmatively reach out to get feedback on that you know as far as the marginalized communities you know I would say that as far as what we've at the as far as the work on this bill largely as far as the formal work on the bill it's just occurred within the legislature that's what I would I would say clearly you know we will put over the past six months to a year since this issue has been brought to the forefront in Arkansas had a lot of feedback a lot of you know just communication I think we all receive emails letters there's clearly this been issued the press we try to take into those things but undoubtedly just in regard to the actual formal development bill I would that's that has not been part of the formal development the bill. Thank you. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Thank you for bringing the bill Mister Speaker and the conversation that we had earlier and hearing your presentation gives. Me a lot of perspective about what you're trying to do and I do appreciate it however earlier you were you you asked the question you know. Which group do we protect. And I think one of my concerns and problems with the bill is that it does cover everybody and not that we don't want everyone protected but. Creating a bill that does cover everybody ignores the fact that there's been an increase in hangings that there's been a fifty one percent increase in racial violence and racial hate crimes are in the last year or two. after semitic hate crimes have increased almost twenty percent and so when we look at the trends in the types of crimes that are at the crimes are identified right we're very specific about the crimes that are identified when we look at those crimes that are identified in which groups are being targeted. And how that's very closely associated with anti semitism with racism and all the antis and the isms that are very specifically affecting very specific groups. How do we. How how do we get past the fact that covering everybody ignores. The racial gender. Hatred that is affecting very specific groups by not mentioning and not focusing on those groups the way that we do when we see an uptick for example in and even though this is different when we as a legislature sought up tick in suicides among veterans. We didn't say what we want to take these resources and we want to create programs to of to address suicide for everybody we saw a problem as it related. Two veterans same thing with you know molestation of children. We've we're still passing laws. If if we could talk if you could talk a little bit about that well It impressions at the outset obviously goes without saying that that myself and I'm sure all this week joining condemning these types of crimes that are clearly any crime but particular these types of crimes that of our You know despicable they're they're outside the norm of society and so I would imagine so that the outset I think that I think that from the standpoint of which groups the protect first and use the term protected because I'm at I'm using that to paraphrase paraphrase basically who do you include is it but if you're looking at which groups you protect I mean I think if you look at at the so called hate crime bills across the country. There is there is a lot of different variations and so. You know looking at gender identity I thought my recollection is a majority states don't protection identity. you know I think a majority states don't protect age I believe I believe the majority don't protected political affiliation many don't protect disability many don't protect sexual orientation that just illustrates the discrepancy from one state to the other and the difficulty in trying to to determine what the what's the consensus as to which groups to identify and to include I think that this bill airs on the side of providing that protection across the board which. Is we're erring on the side of protecting more of the groups that have been targeted as opposed to having to focus on making a determination as to which for five or six verses ten should be included or shouldn't be included and I get and I understand that. I understand the significance and with regard to if you have certain certain groups were specifically identified I understand the significance of that and that's not to to downplayed that I think that with the bill itself we're just trying to err on the side of the of providing more which has of covering more groups which has the added benefit of a laying some of the concerns from from some individuals who are uncomfortable with codifying certain protections for certain groups versus others and so I think that it it provides I think it makes sense and provides us an Avenue hopefully to have a bill that we can generate consensus on states have handled it differently and I recognize that within the legislature of a hundred thirty five members that. I believe one of us would approach it from a different circumstance would would approach it and maybe we draft a different bill I mean quite honestly in terms of what what I put together they're probably things in here that maybe I would have done differently but this is about a legislative process we have to develop consensus and trying to find that consensus is what's brought us to this but I understand the concern with regard to specific groups but I would just I think I make the point that it that it there's many states do not protect and do not provide protection for many groups that I went there I would think there's probably many in this body thank should be protected we on the other hand are going to provide that protection across the board and again the there has to be an initial crime in the first place and so there has to be an underlying crime that actually occurs and you know we can come up with well certain groups or what if we protect this group or another again it will it's good I think it's gonna be focused on the those present and target prosecutor has discretion and that you know I think again it's just another tool in the toolbox for prosecutors. Thank you Mr Ballinger. Representative Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mister Speaker I want to just follow up on what you were just talking about and the enumerated crimes in particular can you just a little bit of light on how you all landed on the crimes that you did end up being they did end up enumerating FOR this delayed release in particular I'm wondering I see that terroristic threatening is covered and I know terroristic threatening can include a threat serious threat of property damage but actual property damage is not covered unless it's arson or involves a firearm can you just talk about I'm asking is let me just give background because in my district there was an instance where the same piece of property was vandalized three times over the course of the summer with some white supremacists graffiti in the way that I read it that particular crime would not be covered under this bill so if you could just talk about your thought process there I'd love to know okay thank you and I had a little difficulty hearing but I but I think I got the gist of your question I think that with regard to specific example you gave it that your I believe you're correct that with regard to vandalism it would be focused on what was likely what the messages that were communicated via that vandalism that might rise level terrace to threatening but possibly not I think with regard to these particular offenses I think it's too it's it's really we're focusing on. In a violent offenses the most serious offenses I think that some of the concerns and again trying to develop a consensus that some of the concern is is that if if if lower level offenses have the possibility of this that that's gives greater opportunity for it to be misapplied in a way that is I think that I think that leads into a kind of some of the social media stories and we're probably all familiar with there are not that there can always be these headlines circulating about how a certain law is misapplied or to take a relatively minor offense and to make it into something it's that maybe it's not and so I I really think that that discussion and why we ended up with that was just to to provide make sure that we're really focused on these violent offenses and that as opposed to if we applied across the board to you know all offenses or lower level offenses that the concern is that there is greater opportunity for misapplication and again trying to develop that consensus of of really focusing on what what's the the particular issue or problem I mean I think that that would that that you know any any offense that would target individuals based on their group or class or whatever that is whatever whatever group or class that may be would be problematic but I think it's up to we're particularly elevating these the serious offenses just level of a point where hopefully there's no there's no misapplication of that so it's it's really just I think tried provide greater assurance it's not going to it is not to be utilized to take some low level offense and make it into something. That it's that maybe it wasn't in the first place. Members I see no other questions a representative Cooper. You're recognized for a question. Representative shepherd's pie understanding a part of the basis for this bill is to get Arkansas off the list of three states that do not have a hate crime statute is that correct that that would be part of motivation yes. Follow up you're recognized for a follow up what entity or organization maintains this list. Well I think there's I think there's a number of different entities organizations that have their own version of that list there's I don't know that there's some kind of ultimate over riding organization that will say yes this you know we hear people say check the box that I had don't know that any if there be any organization as specifically that that is the I go to group on this issue there are groups that will say this is not sufficient but then there other businesses or entities that do believe this is sufficient and I think that it's you know it's also illustrated some of the some of the ambiguity in this area is that each different different to different groups or individuals have different views of what Indiana has done but you don't hear Indiana listed within the three states that that don't have any type of legislation Syria as I said the other day you know I'm not going to look to legislate based upon what can satisfy one group or entity I'm look to legislate based upon you know what makes sense for the people of Arkansas I think this is the bill that makes sense for the people of Arkansas at this point time. More of a push the button again representative. When you're recognized for a follow up so are there any assurances that we will this bill goes far enough to get us off that list those lists and and actually accomplish Accomplish a goal of getting us off those lists I don't I don't think there's any insurance I think that within the state I think the state chamber and other end entities are supportive of it You know from from my standpoint I would be particularly interested in what the feeling that is within the state of Arkansas but this this is the you know best effort we can make again you know not there's no sense dancing around the political realities at play here this is part of the legislative process and trying to develop a consensus put forward a bill that I believe substance of substantively addresses the issues in a substantial way in a comprehensive way but there is there is no No assurance but that's you know that's kind of the case with virtually everything we do down here we can only control what we can control we can try and pass the you know good legislation and that's what we try to do here. Per se Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr Speaker I know you put a lot of time and effort into this so you probably have an answer to this question but. What evidence based on research or. Polling do we have from other states that have enacted legislation like this that shows a reduction in hate crimes as a result of passing a similar bill. You know I'm not aware of any there may be others that could point to specific research this is again going back to what I said earlier I think it's from the standpoint of forty seven states have something in this area and that there are three that are that do not and there's two the other two were working to pass legislation I think that it's it's a it's something that We have to be sensitive to what's got what's going on across the nation and that that Arkansas is going to be in the in the forefront of this issue if we're not able to address it and you know that's similarly I think that well we don't legislate based upon what other states do I think it is it is something that is valuable for us to consider it just the same way that are recall during stand your ground at thirty four to thirty six states either by statute or judicial decision have some form of stand your ground so I think that it's it's it's there's nothing that I could point to specifically I think it's more about sending the message that and and making sure that we're not an out liar and and then again with regard to these particular offenses I do think it's it's also about sending a message within our state because these particular crimes do have a chilling an alarming effect across the board that is unlike what occurs if if in isolated incidents are isolated crimes that maybe are tied to you know A domestic disturbance or overlook relationship issue or a or drug issues when you're talking about these types of crimes that target specific specific groups or classes whether it be Christians whether it be politicians you could the list goes on and on and on it certainly has a chilling effect and warming effect within the community. Follow up please you're recognized for a follow up one of the questions that I posed to our governor last summer was. Some of the pastors are committee of the pastors up in my area of northeast Arkansas. We're concerned that if we pass any form of legislation like this. That if a visitor comes into their worship service and doesn't like the message they hear from the pulpit. That they could file a complaint call it hate speech. And the local law enforcement would need to at least act upon that until they could sort through the details but do you see any potential problems with our a. Religious leaders. Hi. In the future if this bill were to pass I don't and for a number of reasons and let me just say there have been many ministers who have actually been proponents of legislation such as this in the past but that secondly most importantly we don't create a new criminal offense and so somebody that has criminal liability even after this bill passes they would already have to have criminal liability right now. It's so so even if you wanted to if people could be concerned about a conspiracy or some type of solicitation or attempt. We're that's that criminal liability does not change regardless of whether this bill passes or not because we do not create a new criminal offense Furthermore the in the definition of purposely selected we say that that doesn't mean the defendant's mere abstract belief for expression was hospital or contrary to the victim being a member associate with recognizable identifiable group or class or who share the certain characteristics and as I recall there's also I think there's another reference in here that just it's it's been an abstract believe for being a member largely of a group it doesn't create that type of liability but then we also specifically included that this section does not interfere with the exercise of right protected by the United States constitution the Arkansas constitution including limit without limitation the right clergy to express religious beliefs during a religious service or ceremony there's a number of different things in this bill that I think can we can rest assured it is not going to impede or infringe upon religious expression or religious freedom but the bottom line in the most important thing to consider is we don't create a new criminal offense and so if anybody has criminal liability that criminal liability would already exist as the law is today. Member seeing no other questions we have of five people who have signed up to speak for against the bill representative Richmond you have a motion yes madam chair motion what is your motion I'm sure I move to limit the discussion of those speak for or against the bill to five minutes per person members we have a motion on the floor to limit the discussion per person five minutes per person all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it so those who signed up to speak for against this bill you will have five minutes. To make your presentation we have a timer up here and when the timer goes off finish your sentence and will be through so with that the first individual we have will be Reverend Haley Jones Reverend Jones. You'll come forward. The microphone in the middle is already on so if you want to sit in the middle seat will be fine if you will identify yourself and what you define yourself the time will begin. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to spend some time with you today my name is Reverend Haley Jones and I'm the pastor of community engagement at first United Methodist Church in downtown little rock just a few blocks from here. I'm here before you today to urge you to vote no on Senate bill six twenty two. My congregation has been in partnership with other downtown faith communities like second Baptist downtown asking and urging you to pass hate crimes legislation this session. But unfortunately I come before you today completely disappointed with the proposed SB six twenty two and it's an adequate sees for offering protections against specific vulnerable and marginalized populations the very intention of hate crimes legislation that is why I must urge you to vote no on SB six twenty two. It's weak and cannot and should not be a check the box of Arkansas hate crimes. Per how can something be named hate crimes without actually naming it. More on that in a minute. As a follower of Jesus of Nazareth I'm employed to stand in the corner of the vulnerable in the name of the kingdom of god. In order to do this adequately we are called to speak the truth in love. And I don't believe that SB six twenty two speaks the truth and I pray we you find a better alternative to give your constituents and the state of Arkansas to live boldly in love. Now let me share with you why I believe this bill labeled as a hate crimes legislation fails to speak the truth. Challenging injustice why crimes of hate against specific populations cannot be done adequately without speaking the truth. And this bill does not speak the truth because it does not name the truth. The truth is that specifics specifics like race sexual orientation and gender identity or characteristics often targeted for violent crimes. The categories listed in SB six twenty two are vague at best. Which fails the purpose of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes bills are meant to speak directly to people and groups regularly subject to violent crimes and SB six twenty two does does just the opposite. By claiming to protect virtually everyone under the listed categories in the legislation true vulnerable and at risk populations are nest. And quite frankly the opposite of the last shall be first. We are meant to protect communities at risk and the water down nature of this bill will fail to do so. We can do better than this for the state of Arkansas. We must so please please let us speak the truth vote no on SB six twenty two and find a better option another option a by definitions hate crimes bill that the people of Arkansas do you desire thank you. Thank you Reverend Jones for being here next individual is in a bill Tucker. Good to see you. And what you state your name will start the time thank you very much Representative Dalby I am here on my own behalf I am not speaking for any group my name is Annabelle Imber talk on a retired Arkansas Supreme Court justice and I have spent most of my life interpreting statutes. So I want to commend. Representative speak of the Speaker Shepherd and representative Dalby and Senators Hickey and Clark. On their valiant effort to compromise and find consensus which happens so rarely these days. However with my sincere respect to all who have labored. I have three concerns about the viability of SB six twenty true in our courts of law. A Speaker Shepherd mentioned of we have the separation of powers the enactment of laws is by this this house and the Senate. Under the interpretation is by the courts but I think it is important for those writing the laws and passing them to take into account whether they will be viable in our courts of law. First in order to avoid of challenge for vagueness a criminal statute now this is a criminal statute. So this is not just a civil statute. The criminal statute must have specific and clear definitions to give defendants notice of what is a crime. The definition of aggravated circumstance in five four four oh five a one. Relies exclusively on general terms as already mentioned. The term recognizable. My question by whom. The term identifiable my question by whom. The term group. The word share. The word biological. The word cultural. The word political. In short. S. P. this particular provision a one is so vague that a criminal defendant's attorney will be able to drive through it with a Mack truck. Number two. This bill does not constitute an enhancement statute. I use the word enhancement you'll notice there is no use of that word in this bill. It does not provide for the addition of years to original term of years upon conviction. It merely makes an adjustment in the amount of time served on the original sentence it is not an enhanced. And finally number three. The use of vague terms in the definition of aggravated circumstances. And the fact that the bill is not an enhancement statute. We'll make it impossible to disseminate data on convictions under the bill two federal. State and local agencies. I close by stating that I am well aware that this is a very political issue I am not here to debate the politics of it I am only asking you to be very clear with yourselves about whether this law will do anything. Prosecutors. Looking at this even though they may be neutral at this point may be hesitant to even use this tool in the toolbox because they don't want to go up and get reverse because it's vague void for vagueness. So I'm. Leaving you with those comments and I trust your judgment and I appreciate the opportunity thank you very much if you have any questions I'm certainly willing to answer them I'm usually on the other side I enjoy being grilled. Thanks is tempting is that might be we have no questions but thank you very much thank you for your time. The next individual is Jerry **** to speak against the bill. Thank you of madam chair members of the committee my name is Gerry **** and I'm executive director of family council based here in Little Rock in. Thank you for taking the time to look at this this issue there's quite a bit to say about this particular bill I'll try to narrow my comments down to a small area in the bill you know when this issue was first debated out here as I recall it was about almost twenty years ago. And this I testified over in the US Senate committee. at that time. said what strange bedfellows because you had family counseling the ACLU both saying that the hate crimes law was not a good bill. Now eventually that bill is amended and the ACLU was okay with it we have continued to oppose these kind of bills but let me tell you why they opposed it back then and why we did then and while we still do now. It has to do with that whole area of the long arm of the government reaching over into areas like speech. Association. And your thoughts in your beliefs and what you write and what you say and where you go to church and who you hang out with and somehow trying to create a narrative that this must be some sort of of crime of bias or targeting some kind of a crime whatever it is and those are still valid concerns now and I think that's why if you go out around the state most the people that live in your district will say we don't want a hate crimes bill. I think that's why you've heard that that's why we've heard from people all over the place and so. I want to call your attention to one particular section of the bill it actually goes over here to Page two line eighteen. It talks about at the end of this list of terrible crimes in let me say this I wish we could pass a law that would stop all this these terrible things that people do to one another I wish there was something we could do right here to pass a law that would fix all that I think we would all jump at that the chance. But it talks there about those bad things in it says an attempt solicitation or conspiracy to commit an offence listed in this subdivision so you go over here to this next page over on page three right there in the middle lines thirteen down through about nine twenty four or so. And. What we're lacking here are protections for religious freedom freedom of speech and association because what's not in the bill is just as important as what's in it. And so there's that there's a very thin reference here to protecting clergy during a religious service or ceremony is that the only time. The record you meant need specific protection is when you stand on a pulpit. Now I know we have the first amendment protection kind of blanket thing there that's understood that just seems odd to me that it would just single that out what about the regular Christian what about the regular Muslim what about the Jewish person out here is there anything there offered to them and with this comes into play is if I'm an activist and I'm standing on the steps of the capitol and I hold a rally that says something is important and the somebody in the crowd goes down the street and they set fire to a building or do something really bad. According to this there could be a third party investigation back over there on page two line eighteen nineteen and twenty and you end up with accusations like what we've heard about the president with the people that storm the White House no matter how you feel about that this opens that up this opens that up and there really is no firewall there to prevent that from happening so that has a chilling effect on speech association. Religion no matter what you are with your right or left middle or not and so that's something I would urge the urge you all to look at and consider because once this passes this will be a double edge sword you can go to the right you can go to the left it we can go anywhere the prosecutors and law enforcement want to take it. And so for that reason I'm against the bill. Madam chair I'll be glad to take any questions of people have them otherwise I'm finished represent Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of the just a couple comments and questions so it's funny you see in our districts we don't want to hate crimes that is absolutely not the case in my district because they do and if you pay attention to other people throughout the state people are asking for this type of BM so to say that they don't want it I think is not true of you made another comment this is may I may I respond to that in just a minute Mr okay Leding get on the legislation thank you say Richardson let's get to your question okay of the the other comment that that you had made of that you were in favor there there's something that we can we should you wish there was something that we could do to address some of the heinous crimes that happened and I think we're trying to do that with a bill like this so as we move forward so my my question to you is. What is it. That you were so adamantly opposed to with regard to hate crime. Because as a parent that you don't want that type of bill and I'm trying to understand why it is you're so opposed to and it's not just this bill but also so you on video in the Senate yesterday speak against that bill so it seems like it's all hate crimes that you're against well let me answer your first first question and may and forgive me if I misspoke by saying all of your districts I realize that some of you live in districts where the people might actually want this and if that's the case maybe maybe you should vote for but I've been all over the state I've but we've got probably eight hundred pastors and church leaders and other community leaders of signed petitions from every county and so I think I can speak with some level of understanding about where most people are on that. That said when you ask. We are what is it that I would want I'm glad you asked that. Because when the sponsors of this bill are asked to say show us how this helps. Show us what difference this makes. They've yet to do that. And they've yet the people of yet to do that anywhere. And I understand that you may want to pass a law that sends a message and if that's what you want to do then do that knowing that that's that's what this does it sends a message but if you actually want to try to address racism and some of these other terrible things out there I spent a lot of time last summer meeting with people on the political other side of where I am and we both concluded that these kind of laws really don't help the situation there ought to be things that we could do that would address the violence in our cities and I believe there are there ought to be things that we can do that help our kids in school not hate each other and and help people come together there and I believe there are there ought to be things that we can do that'll make a difference thank you and state thank you madam chair and Mr the forgive me for going long on that but but there are answers thank you Mr **** we the thank you madam chair I appreciate appreciate your testimony today next we have Camaro seals the seals. Good afternoon madam chair. In the committee my name is Camaro seals. I am from pine bluff. I am here we're two hats are. Represent the pine bluff branch in A. A. C. P. and I'm also the policy director at the Arkansas public policy panel slash citizens first Congress and I appreciate your having me here today first I wanna I do want to give it knowledge meant to Speaker Shepherd of madam chair in the others. Who have put work into this bill. I'm sure I know you're. Well intentioned but in my opinion and also let me say this to also represent of the marginalized community now heard someone ask of Speaker Shepherd earlier if he had gotten input. From the marginalized community I don't know if he's still in here but I'll I'm gonna email you tomorrow. And offer my services of volunteerism not services but I do represent our because we are statewide organization. We work with marginalized people marginalized communities all across state of Arkansas and I've been doing this work for many many many years okay so I have a good poles of what's happening and how people think in and and have those relationships I work with grassroots ingress tops people so but I am representing the marginalized communities way on I am speaking against this bill. Because let me tell you what we want. We want to have a real hate crime bill that's what we want is simple as that I like I said I appreciate the effort here but we don't want something we're we're just Arkansas gets to check the box and move on okay we know Arkansas is one of three states that that have a hate crimes bill okay and so we want something that is deliberate something that is intentional and something that actually addresses hate crime in the state of Arkansas in this bill there's throughout the bill it talks about this delayed release of and I'm looking at sent like line twenty one twenty two twenty three it talks about of people who've been convicted of certain crimes I didn't of these identifiable groups of classes that are not named in this bill that they can have this delayed release well delayed release has nothing to do with sentence enhancement that's different and so in the bill that was defeated yesterday which was S. bill S. B. three Senate bill three it names of those classes that's what we want to see and and I understand he Speaker Shepherd referenced that this bill was brought it covers everybody guess what everybody under that this is simple as I can say it okay everybody on that that is just like when we were talking about black lives matter people would say all lives matter of course all lives matter but guess what it was black folks whose house was on fire users so that's the difference okay white men are being targeted black folk are being targeted. Okay Asian people are being targeted black and brown people people who have sexual different sexual identities okay L. G. B. T. Q. they're being targeted people being targeted for the race sex religion their ancestry those are the type things that we want to see in a real hate crime bill okay we know people a target there are people who don't like me just for the color of my skin I was born this way you know I'm proud very comfortable in my skin very comfortable with who I am but but we've got to call it like it is now we can't sugar coat this and that's what I feel you know you know everything is so political you know yesterday I was listening to the opening of the Senate. And and I don't know if he was a chaplain or pastor or who but he prayed. And in this prayer he prayed for the people for the legislators to have compassion and justice I heard that I heard. And it really struck me. The tone in which he used it the compassion in which you shared it you know prorated credit prayer but I'm wondering did anybody hear him you know and I've seen it I've seen of that your time is. Thank you for wired okay okay okay now this is a question that would. We have no questions but thank you very much for being here all right we'll well that please vote no on this vehicle our data individual to the to speak for the bill is Randy Zook Mr secretary if you'll come forward and identify yourself and then your time will be. Thank you madam chair of Randy's work with the Arkansas state chamber of commerce and associated industries of Arkansas I'm gonna do my best to stay in my lane and avoid any discussion of the legal points that were so ably presented and the analysis of the bill that Speaker Shepherd did I want to talk about the context of this bill and the impact of this bill I'm here to speak on behalf of our nearly eleven hundred member companies and the many community chambers that have passed resolutions in favor of this bill. I can't recall an issue in thirteen years in this business that has. Created such intense interest in such intense support for a course of action it really is amazing we've heard a lot of. Comments about the fact that we're one of three states this is part of the context let me bring you some news we're now one of two states South Carolina passed the bill yesterday so it's now down to us and one only. Wyoming has a bill under consideration in their legislature as we speak and will likely pass it on to The real impact of the real context it I'd like to talk about is what this bill really gets that and from a business standpoint I'm not here to talk as a lawyer as I said this bill is about talent in all its forms and about the ability of Arkansas enterprises whether they're businesses or colleges and universities or nonprofits or whatever it's about their ability to attract talent to Arkansas. As employers strive to locate and states that with the with policies that welcome diversity and assure fairness inclusion and justice for their employees and their families it's vital to leaders of those businesses that they find that environment in Arkansas I was in a conversation with the CEO and his management team in north Arkansas just week before last this was the number one topic of concern in their decisions about what to do with the six hundred employee facility in that part of the state. They were concerned they were they were frustrated with their inability to attract the talent they need to run their business we have always been known as a good place to do business and we need to protect that reputation. We've got to make sure that our citizens understand that regardless of who they are what they are there and they're not going to be abused or attacked or whatever without the full weight of justice coming down upon the perpetrator saves. I'd like to point out one thing we talk about this bill covers everybody and and that somehow dilutes its of impact would like to point out the FBI statistics tell us that twenty two percent of race based crimes are committed against white people thirteen percent of these religious based hate crimes are committed against Christians twenty five percent of gender based crimes are committed against males my point there is the context would drive us to realize that everybody is literally subject to this kind of abuse in this kind of attack. This is a policy decision that will have high impact on economic development the subject that nearly everyone of you that comes to these offices proclaims to be at the top of your list of concerns economic development and job growth in Arkansas rightly so and the resulting employment opportunities for the people you represent and with that I'd urge you to vote for this bill thank you very much. Thank you Mr secretary being here today Speaker Shepherd you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair and I won't belabor the point just want to hit on a few issues have been raised among some of the comments you know with regard to this question of vagueness you know I would suggest that the bill is expansive not vague and that virtually if we're going to talk about the possibility of vagueness than virtually every bill that we pass that has a word over five letters long as the potential of being challenged and certainly in the criminal round a criminal defendant is going to use every opportunity to challenge anything and everything I mean that's just the fact of the matter again there's no guarantee we put forward a good bill that we. Is will stand will stand the test but you know. I've had a judge in the family for a long time so I've come to understand that there's one person or three people or seven people that make the decision and those are judges and that's not me so we'll have to wait and see with regard to this idea it's not an enhancement we're not saying it is an enhancement but the eighty percent is actually based upon the seventy percent language that is utilized for certain serious crimes and so we're following what is already been an example that we've seen in other areas of Arkansas law and actually again if this is going to be more substantive and more substantial than what has been put forward any other bill the average difference with regard to murder in the first degree between what individuals actually have served in the past under current law and what would occur under this bill is a ten percent difference a ten percentage point difference so even at the very high end we're increasing that there we're actually increasing the time they're going to serve but the rest of these are between twenty nine percentage points all the way up to sixty percentage points and I think represent slight pop former law enforcement officer and anybody else that's been involved in the in the criminal justice system knows this is serious this is serious this is a serious penalty and so we can we can look at expanding and increasing sentences or we can actually be focused on doing something that substantive we focused on doing something that substantive which has the added benefit of also being able to allay the concerns that were syncing people differently from one group to another we're not doing that the third point is with regard to the sentencing order the Division of correction of with the sentencing commission they re do the sentencing order after every legislative session and so if we pass this bill they will create a system by which they can in the sentencing order this information can be documented and it can be a tract and then finally with regard to the concern about whether it's unconstitutional because the way we drafted the bill because the there is an underlying criminal offense that that has to be determined I. Conviction has to be had it's my belief and after talking with prosecutors and others is that if there is an error if there is some issue with regard to the constitutionality of this bill I want to be a new trial they'll just send it back for resentencing the person's already been convicted on the underlying offense. No harm done and if that occurs then the legislature in the future can make a decision for itself as to what if anything needs to be addressed in light of such court decisions again that's something that happens in virtually every session we have a bills that are run because of a court decision but again that's just part of that's part of the separation of powers all we can do is pass the bill passed a law and it's up to the other branches to enforce and interpret and then with regard to the comments about and I had difficulty hearing over there but I think that there were some reference that if somebody was standing on the capitol steps and set something and somebody else will not committed a crime that the person that said something could have criminal liability I don't. That was essentially what he was arguing we don't create a new criminal offense if it's criminal liability it already exist. So we create new no new crime. If that's criminal it's criminal right now. So I think that's important to understand and then I think the final point that I would have there were some comment about what the with regard to whether what individuals are protected even under the other bills have been offered white men would be protected under those other bills so again this this act we are I think this bill Ayers on the side of protecting any and all groups or classes that may be targeted it's a bill that can stand the test of time it's a bill that hopefully we can come together on a bipartisan basis in. Yes this bill and allow prosecutors this tool that hopefully. You know hopefully we don't have these types of crimes committed in Arkansas but again this is a bill that allows prosecutors the opportunity to impose real substantive and comprehensive punishment on those offenders that would that would that dare to commit such heinous crimes and with that I would move do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Representing the call you're recognized for discussion. Thank you madam chair. Have a great deal of respect for Speaker Shepherd in and chair Dalby I know it's been a great deal of time working on this bill I do not take your leadership lightly we've talked enough for both of you to know there My can't support this bill this particular bill I wanna be clear my opposition to the bill specifically about the bill not about the sponsors and I know we say that often I'm sincere in that. This bill does not put this bill does protect everyone and by doing that doesn't define the people most hated it's a pro eligibility bill that applies to everyone from my perspective. If you're not a minority maybe it's difficult to understand what this feels like looks like. This bill in my opinion does not meet the hate crimes criteria historically all people have not been victims of hate crimes certain minority groups have certain groups of folks have been targeted over and over that's the need for list this simply says in our state we do not condone this discriminatory behavior. I do worry about the vagueness an actual application of the bill I worry that the many small crimes the strike large terror in communities are not covered. In my opinion this bill is not check the box that I so desperately wish they could I speak up for those are still getting lost to remain invisible in twenty one years in Arkansas since the hate crimes bill was first introduced we still cannot admit or say that there's certain folks are targeted. As an English teacher words have always mattered to me the words matter and our laws the words matter we fought over words here all the time. Now finished with this in central Arkansas the hate crimes are being committed in the last few years have been once targeting and killing black trans women and I'm speaking the group's name today because it and others are not spoken in the bill and for these reasons I'll be voting against the bill thank you. Represent flowers you're recognized for discussion. Thank you manager. I want to start out by saying that this bill is not about talent this issue was not about talent with all due respect nor is it about checking a box. We've as my colleague just mentioned since the bill was first presented it's been over twenty years. And it's not even a partisan issue when the bill was presented twenty years ago was a majority of Democrats serving in the legislature and now it's it's it's the opposite and we have an opportunity then we have an opportunity now. To address a problem. The problem is that hate crimes exist. Hate crimes based upon hate against particular groups that have been targeted. Since in the history of this country whether it's been a lynching campaign coast and slave meant through jim crow and even recently we've seen hangings happening in the United States of America and twenty twenty one. The people who are targeted for religious reasons L. G. B. T. reasons. Racial reasons. They need protection. We know who those groups are and they should be named. And for whatever reason that we have to. Compromised in order to get something pass I think we need to. Rethink. The Speaker very eloquently and valiantly I think presented this bill and and in an awesome I think attempt to find a consensus. And you know many people who I've had a great opportunity to work with know that wherever I can I find consensus and an opportunity to compromise on issues that seem partisan to that aren't. I'm on a gun bill with Senator Stubblefield so I know how to compromise. But this is not something I believe we can compromise on the last time we found consensus to compromise on something like this we spent the next twenty years plus trying to figure out how to separate holiday. And this is not a holiday this is about. Protecting populations that are experiencing domestic. Terrorism and trauma and violence and it's happening all over our country. We just heard one of our foremost business leaders tell us that. Senate that that South Carolina has passed their law. South Carolina passed a hate crimes bill. Seventy nine to twenty nine. Their bill. Will seek additional penalties for crimes committed on the basis of hate because of a person's actual or perceived race color religion sex sexual orientation gender national origin and physical or mental disability. We've taken a lot of years to get to this point we have an opportunity to do it right it's not even about it's not about not covered white men white men have been attacked and persecuted. And murdered. For reasons around L. their their sexual orientation and religion. We need a bill that will protect the people who need protecting. So I just ask for us to consider doing that. Rather than passing something on the basis of consensys. Where we will still find a vision and find ourselves we found ourselves a couple of sessions ago fighting about a holiday but instead this will be about criminal prosecution in people's lives. And finally. As much as I would like to vote for something we can get now we heard from a former Supreme Court justice who said that it is vague on two fronts. And does not. Provide the enhancements that's necessary. So for those reasons I regret that I won't be able to vote for the bill today thank you. Represent a slight you're recognized thank you madam chair of Mister Speaker the crimes that you've listed in the bill I have an Postgate and products help prosecute nearly every one of those And never one time where they committed because of love it was a hate for each one of and it was for different classes of people each time we go into the chamber out there we say the pledge of allegiance. The you know there with the at the end justice for all and this seems to be the one that would be for everyone is our constitution gives and for that reason I will be supporting this bill. Represent Richmond you're recognized thank you madam chair Speaker up to just recently the idea of me voting for hate crime has always been a foreign concept because of the exclusion. That it had for all people. I believe that you cannot have equal justice by creating an unequal system this bill on the other hand. Those very far and I believe it Chiefs in equal system of justice for everybody because I believe all crime is a crime. And so I appreciate the effort and I think that this particular bill is a bill that we truly can get behind and that we can support and for that reason I will vote for this bill. Members I see no further discussion we have before and on the floor. A motion to do pass on Senate bill six twenty two all in favor please say aye aye All opposed say no the ayes have it we are adjourned. We're already Jr.