Judiciary Committee - Senate

The chair sees a quorum. Everyone could take you places. Do we have any two minute bills. Our. Does anybody have an eighty two but it bills. Of. Representative will. Representative Wooten. Senator. I don't see him there. Yes you definitely need a mock. Thank you Mr chairman good morning committee members. We have today ten ninety eight which is the bill that I was in here senator Hammer was and then I came in we went back and completely. We did this and what we're doing now is asking to a man the code title twelve chapter twelve subsection nine. And what we've done is deleted the whole bill. This in place of it this amends that code and there is another section was notices notice requirement one owner operator fleecy or administrator with childcare facility is very to the sex offender we took out the employees all they have to do in this section this be added Senator Ballinger is that all they have to do is to call and notify the parents and the this and the reason we included in administrators of laci's is because and must situation the owner leased the facility to to the lease the and then became an employee so that the you know that when we missed that we hear Mr chairman of the happy to answer any questions but that's the simplicity of the bill if you will okay we'll get a motion to adopt the amendment from center Johnson. Circumcenter Hendren any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations represent wooden your bill is amended to do you have anything else to say about your bill or break for questions No shoes this is an assertion any questions because the it pretty well is just as a new section to the to the current co. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Okay other questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill or something that just. We drove Jeff pros like signed up to speak against. Perspire okay very good all right then we have a motion from Senator Ballinger do pass second from center Johnson any discussion here none all for the of that was a motion do pass as amended hearing no discussion offer the motion students of all the saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolutions representative wouldn't you have passed your bill is amended thank you Committee I think we may I think we measure of the bill thank you very much. The A roof is representative Michael here. The representative the call of is Senator Hammer here. You senator Hammer. Of Senator Hester. You're presenting house bill seventeen thirty one yes please house bill seventeen thirty one. Give us just a moment to fund the. Senator Hester you're recognized to present house bill seventeen thirty one thank you members this this bill is just regarding the sentencing procedure during a capital murder trial that we had a a trial Northwest Arkansas that brought something to delight that we just need to clarify and I will hand it over to a prosecutor Nathan Smith to a to present the bill. Thank you Matt senator has said my name is Nathan Smith on the prosecuting attorney been council and the president of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association and Mr Rosenzweig a series the fence around this case and so just to give you not only get into the details of the case is ongoing but I need to describe the need for for the law so in Arkansas we have what's called the the same jury provision which means that the same jury generally that here's the guilt phase also is required by law to hear the sentencing phase what happened in a case that that we had state of Arkansas versus Mauricio Torres's during the sentencing phase after the defendant had been convicted and that verdict have been handed down he'd been found guilty we are in the sentencing phase one of the state's witnesses let from the witness box in it and tried to attack the defendant in the court room and so the judge stop the trial declared a mistrial now at that time I think everyone was under the impression that the sentencing phase with miss trial was mistrial we simply having the sentencing phase but the judge interpreted the law over my objection to the Supreme Court has has now affirmed his interpretation that when because we have that same jury provision that when a mistrial occurs in the sentencing phase it is not limited only to the sentencing phase but applies to the entire case as well and that kind of left us with the absurd result that a a a guilt phase that had you know no error in it as related to the sentencing phase had to be done all over again and so in a dissent that certain that I believe justice will make suggested that this is of a law that needed to be fixed and so we're bringing that this bill. For that reason all our bill does is this it takes no rights away from the defendant the defendant still gonna get his full appeal rights but what it does in the relevant statutes and we work with the attorney general's office as well on this and I appreciate their help what it does is say that if there is a mistrial in sentencing the the options available are the same as if the Supreme Court had reverse the sentencing phase at a later date and those two options on the prosecutor can ask the judge to impose a life without parole and this is again in a capital murder trial so the two penalties available or cat or like for that problem definitely and so the prosecutor made or say we we elected you would impose life without parole in the sentencing phase or impair empanel a new jury and we will have a new sentencing phase but an error in the sentencing phase won't be able to disturb the guilty verdict so I hope I have explained that well enough make clear now but I'll be happy to take any questions if you'll have any. Questions from the committee. Cena Senator Stubblefield. Listen tale of putting together a whole new jury yes Sir so what would have to happen is if if the judge declares a mistrial saying that this jury can no longer set because the error is such that I'm going to declare a mistrial and we can have a fair trial anymore if that if that is in fact the judge's ruling know what would happen is we would empanel a whole new jury the the policy reason for for that that I believe that's good good with the bill that we want to maintain that error only to sentencing is that doesn't make any sense from a judicial economy standpoint to say were just going to undo that the guilty verdict because the error didn't affect guilt and only affect sentencing but yes Sir we would have to empanel a whole new jury just as we would have to do if the Supreme Court on appeal said there was an error and Senate saying that you know we we need to correct you have to appeal one in town knew jury to handle that. But it would not change the location of the trial no Sir that still gonna be up to the judge a defendant could certainly move for change of venue but that's probably gonna be a question for the judge okay thank you Mr. Senator Ross. Crazy mind blowing. Is there any concern that. Someone who's been found guilty. No pretty much what kind of sentence is going to be yes Sir. Could have a third party. DO an action in court like was done in this state was not. Would be premeditated by anybody by that person. To strictly have a better chance with another jury. Well two things one I wanna make I wanna make clear that this was one of the the state's witnesses that this is not a gift not a defendant's witness says that yes Sir so there there certainly is always that possibility having tried cases you always want wonder if you know guys convicted and then we break for lunch do sentencing your as one or more of these coming back today but that's always gonna be a question for the judge to this doesn't mean that a person is going to be released from jail or anything like that the the bond would still be there so those are all issues left to the discretion of the judge just like a a the decision of whether to to mess around the case would be as well and to be clear we objected vigorously to the mistrial we did not want that to happen but but ultimately that that was a judge's ruling we respect that ruling and so we're trying to fix the law so it can be as good as it can be in this situation because that too to be fair we are correcting here I believe an extremely rare or limited problem but when it happens the effect is catastrophic read a lot on the effects on your claims so unfair that a jury that has all knowledge of that case yes Sir. You know couldn't put that action the side and you know and I I just feel like judge the roll on that may thank you. Other questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. Mr rose one. Jefferson's like I signed up just be informational on it and but Mr Smith Accurately describe what happened one thing I would disagree with would be his his opinion that there was no error in the guilt phase but will work. You always think that. Other than other than that he was a he was accurate and this was an extremely rare situation the only time this is ever happened the forty four years I've been doing six so. Any questions from the committee. C. nine is there anyone else here to speak for or against the bill. See none Senator Hester would you like to close for your bill I'm closed. Motion to pass from Senator Ross. Second from center Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolution Senator Hester you have passed your bill. Senator Ballinger. House bill thirteen twenty nine. Senator Ballinger you're recognized president house bill thirteen twenty nine. Thank you Mr chairman and committee at thirteen twenty nine is really basically clean up so we created a provision for if a individual was was a sentence for possessing or even for controlled substances that they have the ability to get their records sealed if they if they were to go through basically drug court process that's with this code section designed for what what's happening is it's actually catching misdemeanor drug drug possession charges and so what we're trying to do is just clarify that that this code section only applies to felonies and the Hey a person with a misdemeanor drug drug charge can still get their records sealed through normal means without actually attending a treatment facility. Happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Ross. These forward this yes it is the same class of drugs. I'm looking for well it it is I mean so the distinction would be whether it's a misdemeanor or felony it won't be the class of drug. You will be what it would be the class of drugs would be the distinction it be whether it's misdemeanor or felony but of course class of drug will make a difference in whether to issue a felony control. Right. This change that the felony controlled substance rather misdemeanor that is what I'm trying to grasp this. Is there some of the more serious. Right now. One of the leading method it covers anything it so AT from my understanding there is such a thing is a misdemeanor meth methamphetamine possession charge I would be shocked if there is such thing as a as a misdemeanor that no possession charge although you know there's definitely out of people a lot better criminal minds me who can answer that and you could could we have a clarification on the. Sure. One of. I guess we lost Nathan Smith so mmhm. Doesn't look like. What we got a we have a president. Sturch to fuel a dinner for yourself for the record my name is Daniel shoot on the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County the twelfth judicial district I'm also the legislative chair for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association if you would repeat the question please senator what I'm trying to grasp is this cover all drugs some of the more serious drugs that. I'm trying felony the comfortable in right in this more than likely these are all going to be felony possessions like possession of meth possession of cocaine those are felony possession charges now I'm trying to think there's some schedule for is like valium and their schedule six which is marijuana those are misdemeanors. From your work in. Drug court. The drug court they're gonna be felony charges. If there's a misdemeanor it would be from probably something that's associated with District Court. You covered with this yes yes thank you thank you Mr. I would have a question for both of you what again the only thing you're changing here if I'm looking at it correctly is reading felony twice correct the word polling twice why I mean it was it not clear that was falling before we leave out misdemeanors yes so it wasn't clear I mean it was I think it was intended to be felony charges but what's happening is in this district judges dealing with this where it it basically if you want to want to sell the records of misdemeanor you know marijuana possession first time whatever that they are actually required to go to residential facility in order to fulfill the requirements of the code section even though that wasn't the intent the intent was was to to provide this as a tool for drug court for the the felony possession. Does this not exclude now sealing a misdemeanor record or am I missing something in some other part of the law no no it would because that now you have the pool you can do it just like you could with any other Mr. Okay so it would there's a law for misdemeanor ceiling misdemeanors then correct okay all right. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none of anyone here to testify for against the bill. See non Senator Ballinger would your clothes your bill yeah let me just say I appreciate the fact that the questioning here I was targeted at trying to make it not as difficult on somebody I mean it it is to me I think it's just that they good know that sometimes we get a bad rap but this committee has pretty good hard and and I just that is the intent of this legislation makes a little easier on people as I appreciate a good vote move do pass. Motion to pass. Second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Ballinger you have passed your bill thank you very much of you have a no other bill yes fifteen ninety eight our house bill fifty nine is. So house bill fifty nine eight is a is a little change but it's very meaningful change so essential right now the possession of weapon is prohibited in a lot of uh areas municipal parks and so forth what this does is this clarifies outdoor areas that is owns public property by the cities are no longer prohibited place. Real simple easy change adding taking out one word in and having three words. Questions from the committee. US Senator Hendren and then senator dole's. Thank you Mr chairman so for instance in the. And grab it the city owns ball fields but the school has teams that play there. But we have a prohibition against school so they would be able to take under this firearms to school baseball games so the park itself would would not be a prohibited place so the schools plan there the park wouldn't be it I mean it's there's but obviously school grounds is a different world but not the not city park. So yes they would yeah correct. Other questions also if you don't. This is much like your bill right German. Yes. Except your bill excluding these excluded. The fields right thank you. Senator Ballinger us since I've read as B. three oh six it passed the house yesterday correct of I believe this bill. Those that don't have it here in this language only applies if you have a concealed carry permit no at your bill only applies to be a concealed carry permit this is the list of prohibited places so this would take it off the list of prohibited places so you're carrying constitutionally you would have the ability to care. Okay so you're gonna go for me yeah even just you know crazy person like you're right okay. All right of any other questions from the committee. What we have of John Wilkerson with a municipally signed up to speak against. Thank you. John Wilkerson accounts of a municipally Obviously the second amendment issues and gun issues are are very weighty and and we we try to to tread lightly as much as we can and we really appreciate Senator Ballenger I appreciate Senator Ballinger personally for talking to me about this bill a listener concerns and was very kind of listen to those and I listen to his his thoughts as well and and it was very a good conversation I'll say this is for the Municipal League for meme for me myself at least there's a lot of gun bills going around and we it's it's difficult for us to keep up with exactly what they do and how they work as the grandmas are our servers are cumbersome and depending on the bill depends on the level of which are mayors and city officials your voice their objections to it so Senate bill three oh six for instance are our folks decide to take a neutral stance about yesterday's bill allowing enhance care in a public buildings they said they were concerned that it was always you know more guns in public buildings at this one is very concerning for our city officials because we're allowing open carry of of guns and deadly weapons that's what that what the law says in city parks and represent Wardlaw on the house and made it made or made a an argument and it's it's true he said he what he's trying to do in large part was to make consistent national state parks who allow open carry to apply to city parks the the difference between you know national parks state parks and city parks is that we don't have baseball tournaments at Yellowstone we don't have the soccer tournaments like we do it burns park at pinnacle and so we're worried that allowing more guns it's gonna cause more alarm and we're worried that with the congregation of that many people especially young people at a baseball game or a soccer game that it runs the risk of just it's just a dangerous risk that we're worried we're very very concerned about our or city officials are very concerned about so we we want to voice our concerns and we appreciate I said Senator Ballinger and you know you are listening to us thank you. Senator Johnson. When there were. Congressman. Randy see their reflection in that field was at a city park. I don't know I think that maybe it was but I wouldn't swear to that. Would not be good to be able to defend yourself in those places like others that that's the argument Senator Ballinger made and I understand arguments what we worry about is that just the number of guns and it really that that level of alarm that it would raise and yeah I was I was thinking about this you know caring and an A. R. fifteen to two you know it having someone carry their fifteen staff for back into it you know during a baseball tournament we worry that's going to cause alarm named in the plea serving on a call get called out but then we have to stand your ground law and we have you know they have to you know use it in a manner thank you the law says amendment of its aggressive and then the police can you know get involved it's just we're just worried that it's it's going to be just cause too much alarm that's our concern but we but I have heard that and I do appreciate that argument yes Sir thank you John. Senator Hendren. So you mention and and again I didn't realize my past my first real questions this was open carry as well so with no limitation so under this even though if they if the school plays a ball game or city team plays a ball game on school prime properties they're they're restricted. But if they played on city owned property people can come to the ball game with a are fifteens with no licensure or anything that's my understanding how this bill would work yes the is that the way you understand Senator Ballenger the. So long guns is different situation anyway but there are so the actual restrictions on guns are are less than they are handguns but yeah there's currently in Arkansas you can carry open concealed with constitution care without limitation save for the prohibited places what this does is takes city parks are from one of those permitted places. Okay. The other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you Mr president thank you is there anyone else who speak for against the bill. See non Senator Ballenger would you like to close your bill yeah I I I appreciate the opportunity the represent Wardlaw gave me to run this I visited with him make sure didn't conflict with your bill and there's not any any direct conflict and so I'm I'm happy to to carry this piece of legislation and I would make a motion to pass a motion to pass second from center Johnson any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye aye All opposed. Motion carried congratulations center Ballinger your past your bill thank you Mr chairman thank you committee. Senator Garner is still not here. A representative Gonzalez. It's not here. Senator Elliott. Well it Senator Hendren you're recognized to present Senate bill three. Thank you Mr chair since since I'm the lead sponsor on this I'll go first but while I'm the lead sponsor I will tell you that compared to the effort that's been put into this because it's it pales in comparison to what to my co sponsor senator Elliots she's been working on this for literally decades in and and it will not to give up And so but never the less I will I feel like I think most of us know what to what we're gonna do in this legislative session this is an issue though well senator Elliots been working on it for decades I've been working on for months trying to come up with a piece of legislation that would to accomplish the goal of making Arkansas and not stand out as one of the three states that doesn't have hate crimes protections so I'm not going to burden you with a whole bunch of details I wanna let Senator Elliot talk about some of the necessities for legislation like this and so I will say again we have already passed out here Senate bill six twenty two. it it's on the calendar for today on the floor but nevertheless something that somebody to work on for decades deserves to be heard and the people who are impacted most by these crimes deserve to be heard so I appreciate committee making it possible for us to present Senate bill three. So I'm not gonna go through every line I will tell you in general that this bill originated from two other states that have recently passed hate crimes legislation I guess it would be number forty five number forty six which would be Utah and Georgia two Republican controlled states this legislation is mirrored very similar to what was passed in both of those states that this legislation has been was negotiated with stakeholders and what I mean by stakeholders is the people who are most impacted by hate crimes legislation which is a. As of a couple years ago according to FBI over eighty five hundred a year so it's significant population of people who are impacted by this and I want to make sure the people are impacted or involved in the drafting of the legislation. So as you can see in the subtitle it makes it very clear that this calls that hate crime concerning the commission of hate crimes in Arkansas but I also want to be clear just to Senate bill six twenty two this bill does not create a new crime this bill enhances somebody who is convicted of a criminal. ACT in fact on page three it says upon a finding of guilt the subject of the defendant is subject to a sentence enhancement under this section. So while it uses the term hate crimes because that's how we incident in society for the last decade have categorize these type of crimes Justice Senate bill six twenty two nobody is subject to anything under this piece of legislation unless they're found guilty of violating current criminal code. The other thing that it does where I think force a lot of the consternation with members of the committee is on page one it clearly defines traditional victims of hate crimes it says race it says color religion ethnicity ancestry national origin homelessness gender identity sexual orientation sex disability or service in the United States Armed Forces and I will tell you that last category there was added because of an incident that happened here in Little Rock where a member of the armed forces was targeted at a recruiting office because he was a member of the armed forces so this legislation while it's been modeled after what we've seen in other states has also been tailored to to deal with some of the things that we've seen here in Arkansas and so the legislation does the best that I think we can to pass something that sends the message that just like the other forty seven states we're going to take people who I move from just hate of thought or speech to a committing a criminal act we're gonna take those type of actions very seriously an enhanced the penalties so that's what the legislation does and just to Senate bill six twenty two requires reporting of these offenses so does this on page five U. Attorney General collect and disseminate this because when the in the data that we do look at from the FBI we know that many of the crimes that are committed in Arkansas are not reported as hate crimes because we have no law on the books and we have no reporting requirements so just to Senate bill six twenty two this would require that the only other thing I would point out the difference between this in Senate bill six twenty two before asking senator day to comment is Senate bill six twenty two primarily deals with felony actions felony crimes this is more broad than that because many of the cases that are prosecuted may not rise to the level of being a felony they may be a misdemeanor offense so in allows for the enhancement of fines or jail terms in those cases as well and we had a case in Fort Smith of vandals writing incredibly offensive racist words on a African American family that had moved into the community and I think that's the example by say local that that can that is a little bit different categories and somebody who paints their class graduation you're on the water tower but under Arkansas law there's no provision to make a distinction between those two type of vandalised occurrences so I think it's a more more comprehensive I think it's more appropriate and most important things is this bill gives us the option to pass a piece of hate crimes legislation that has bipartisan and that the people who are most impacted and continually be impacted by this year after year C. is a real step forward so having said that Mister chairman okay I'd like for Senator Ellie to comment and and a. About her experiences with. Thank you I Senator Hendren and I thank you Mr chair and members of the committee I didn't come to the committee this morning thinking that America is going to necessarily happen however I welcome the articles so just know that I started down this road when I was a freshman here and legislature where as a freshman I could not get on the Education Committee so lo and behold I ended up on a committee where it was a real expert on the Judiciary Committee. And so for whatever reason the bill passed out of the Senate the hate crimes bill is in two thousand one it passed out of the Senate without any big issues and ironically in two thousand one and so when it came to the house and for whatever reason it fell to me to separate that bill through the house committee and you can imagine how that might have been doctored for freshmen because we heard some of the same issues that we have today you know twenty years later basically and when I presented the bill it was going well and I see what is going to pass until frankly there were people who showed up to as they should have to speak against the bill that's what they felt out but there were also a group of clergy who showed up who had who had the most Swayze on that bill. And as a freshman it was an opportunity our challenge for me to show what I was made up if I could stand up to what I have had believed all my life that under the law all of us must be treated in an equal manner no matter who you are and so with the Clerk she said to me well if you will remove sex sexual orientation from that bill we will support it and the bill would have passed there is no question about that that was a big swing point twenty years ago and I I knew I didn't have to think about that I knew that I could not look around the table look around our community and say yes I'm all for this bill as long as some people are covered but I'm fine if I have if some people can be the victim of hate crimes and we don't cover them. That's why we don't have a hate crimes bill today it's not because I was being stubborn. It was because I believe we all a matter equally and so twenty years later there been people other than just me who tried at this over the years. And it still hasn't happened and I I really hope when we do pass I hate crimes bill in Arkansas it will be one point we are clear eyed and nobody has to guess about what we need and do I have to try to figure out am I covered not covered under this bill. So I did impasse then obviously and when I came to this opportunity where we had a chance to work on a bipartisan basis I thought that was a very very good thing it was bipartisan back and and two two thousand one too by the way and then one six twenty two a past as I knew it would I thought it was just important for people whose voices were not heard for their voices to be heard which is one of the reasons I'm here today. But I think there been so many things that have been confused by what we mean by hate crimes bill so. I want to just begin here might just reading what I hate crime bill really is according to the FBI who's been collecting data as a result of a law in nineteen ninety four it's been expanded some that's the first thing you I think we need to know about hate crime bill it's not just because I hate you. That's going to cause up I hate crime and to be filed against you that's not it there has to be a history to it and there has to be a pattern to it identifiable by groups so that's when the question was asked the other day I thought somebody ask about but could you let's just say can Kerr are carpenters covered if somebody kills a carpenter. Well unless we we have a history and I have an accumulation of at a pet owner people perpetrating hate crimes against cooperatives no. It is not a crime I might even hit somebody and because we're not legislating hate under this bill you still get the hate all you want to. It's what you do two groups where there is a pattern. And the groups or identifiable. So what the F. B. I. says. Basically the FBI investigates hate crimes that are limited to crimes in which the perpetrators act based on a bias against the victim's race color religion or national origin in addition investigations are restricted to those four in the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity with the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd junior hate crimes abroad prevention act of two thousand nine the bureau became authorized to also investigate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation gender identity disability or gender. So that's what I'm at the end of the table talking about because I I don't feel that. If we are going to have a true hate crimes bill I can just make up my own definition so that's why I'm using that definition. And I just wanted to give you I mean there are if you want to verify it and these numbers to see more you can certainly do so by going to the FBI uniform crime report web page because that's where I got this information. The victim of a hate crime and may be an individual may be a business or financial institution a government entity or religious organization or society the public as a whole now what that means is because when you identify hate crime group what what that means is force about society because that's where questions has been asked for public as a whole. If somebody is doing something that is designed and it has a hate crime minute markers on it designed to terrorize a public group of people like for example if somebody is is is is is Has been accused of. Terrorizing folks going to a baseball game designed to terrorize folks that's a public entity where somebody's done something specifically to that group of folks. And so the F. B. I. makes those kinds of distinctions like if if you show up maybe it's my family people know the Elliott family is common the Elliott family is black or whatever and we need to send a signal that every time the bell your group shows up in a public place we're going to be there to terrorize them in some fashion depends on whatever they do could be more than terrorizing. So but this six I wanted you to know about is you know the and the analysis of that the FBI has done. Fifty seven point six percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders by us against race this is one twenty nineteen I guess race ethnicity and ancestry twenty point point one percent were victimized because of bias against religion. This is across the country sixteen point seven percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation. Two point seven percent were victims of gender identity bias two percent were targeted because of bias against disability and point nine percent eighty one individuals were victims of gender bias and that was twenty nineteen now obviously today all of us watch the news and we see what's a big in the news now with so much of the of the actions that are taken against Asian Americans and the Philippine of islanders a Pacific islanders and that's something we see happening right now. And so when you say when you say we're going to have a hate crime bill we need to be sure we are name and who we're talking about because otherwise he's otherwise it gets lost in the whole obscurity of everything matters at this moment for example. We can say right now. Every pandemic everywhere matters and I'm just going to go out and get me a vaccination for one of those pandemic so everyone of those diseases we know COVID nineteen is not going to be covered if you go Now at just to get say I don't know I shot for some other disease. If you say I have I'm concerned about covid but I think I'll go ahead and get me a shot because you know I'm concerned about smallpox. Smallpox is not the issue. Smallpox is serious but smallpox is not the issue. And you can say all diseases matter but right now we know. It is covid that matters so you name what you're talking about. So if it's not the whole public and general that is S. B. and victimize with hate crimes you need to say who is otherwise we don't know what we're talking about it's just everybody and it did it at that point it becomes something that I think we cannot say that this group that is known to be victimized that we are concerned about protected in that group not just saying all of us have been victimized because that's just not the case. And I will I don't want to go with the rest of the statistics here that's probably enough to us for us to get a good conversation going but what I do want you to know is I recognize we have difference of opinion we do that's fine. But it is important that people in this state no. We have groups of people. Who fits the definition of what the FBI has traditionally and over the years and collected data to show there are certain groups it's not the Arkansas legislature for example there are certain groups that have sued has historically been victimized groups of course that there is a pattern. And that's what we need to go by that's why this bill is so important. If people matter. In their groups. And they're being victimized in their groups we need to have a lot to say hating them is not okay. And that's what I hope be able to. Thank you Mr chair I'll take any questions. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr. It I'd added I understand your heart and I know I know you will have to to to know that you and I probably agree on on We don't agree on politics we agree on everything else when it comes to people and and and caring and all the stuff. It It you made the comment to the whole public is is not are not victims of hate crimes. But the the attack on the on the people of the at the Christian Research Council when was that a hate crime the guy was planning on when but to place in which is that after you kill them is going to supplement in the and the people that was that a hate crime and who was it that was victimized the bill it's a question Research Council of the conservative Christian organization thank in Georgia Virginia thank anyway that the guy went in and to achieve a bunch of people when not to place Senate and and the reality is you may not even know about it because media don't talk about these things but what would that be a hate crime what and you're right I I'm not familiar with that case however if it if it can be shown that this happened just because of these people's religion because religion is one of that one of the things that's covered it would be a hate crime I would assume I don't sit here and try to try we don't have to get up the motivation because the guy said that the the group is listed from the on the southern poverty law center's as a hate group and that's why it targeted that group. So what would that be a hate crime I would assume so okay that is the the the congressmen who were who were playing baseball in DC and the guy comes up and he says are those for what those guys Republicans yes somebody of those guys Republicans for answer yes he goes start shooting up people nearly kills some people with that be a hate crime I don't know about that that would that would take some litigation beyond what we can do right here because we would have to determine which I don't have the ability to do so is there history is there a pattern of folks who are Republican just being targeted say for example like what's happening now with the Asian Americans Pacific islanders yes so but I guess that's the that's mine my concern is I meet you originally refused to pass a hate crimes bill because it didn't include some people who were victims of hate crime at and I would say that any one of our citizens any one of our constituents could be guilty of it especially where in a time frame where people have moved past. Just being angry at each other they moved past just posted means stuff on on social media and now they're acting out in violence towards each other and I and I I think it's a I think it's a sad time that we're we're living and I think it's a but the problem these be addressed but the but the truth is people are where maggot hats and getting the the heartbeat out of them because there were an imac at and and and you know this but you may not agree with their philosophy but but the reality is a person should be attacked because they have share some social or or political or or whatever if you committee if if we're going to have a a bill that the target state should cover everyone should not cover it should make it where anybody is out there and and because the person is belong to some group or some Association culturally politically religiously whatever whatever they're part of somebody in full fiable group should they get the same protection as any other person they should yes and here's where I think we model the water we are redefining what a hate crime is based on what we think as opposed to what's what original hate crimes how they are defined if if I do something to somebody just because I hate them. Yeah because we're we're not legislating your ability to hate we're what would be legislated is what you do as a result of that per the definition that we have in the law and if I start making my own definition about everything that's done because of hate yeah everything is good so it's going to be covered but that's the point there is nothing I know what that is creating a pattern and a history of people attacking Democrats or Republicans because of the groups there in patterns or history. It just make a comment on that because I know Senator Ballinger and I've had this discussion as I've been trying to find a path forward on this bill to where that we can get more legislative support particularly from the Republican side and the concern about people being beat up for required mag hats there are states to include political affiliation in their their list and I think I've told you and I've told others if that's the concern I got no problem with putting that in there because I think we do agree that anybody who's targeted because of characteristics or because of their association with a political party or anything else that falls under the same grouping and to be honest with you as I said when we had Senate bill six twenty two I don't disagree with putting some brought over reaching language to allow for crimes against a group that may not be a victim today but may be a victim next year the N. and again and that's why proposed amendment to six twenty two sep I got no problem with your over reaching broad language however I think it is appropriate to say according the FBI definition into the crimes they're tracking we know today we know that there eighty five hundred times a year where these groups today are being targeted and they're the ones that are most concerned that this legislation is not going to include deal so I'm not I don't have a problem with including more I've made the point though that this bill does protect everybody everybody has a race everybody has a gender everybody has most people have a religion everybody has a national origin I mean this bill covers us all equally but it also tries to identify groups that have been traditionally targeted to the point of thousands per year. Specifically to give them the message that we're tired of it and we're not going to tolerate it so again I don't want it as I said from the beginning if adding additional groups and including overreaching language is a barrier to to not listing these groups I'm trying to get past that. And I I just wonder or remark briefly here because that happens and there's nothing wrong with. My doing things because of my heart. But I don't want to get reduced to that because these are numbers and these are real people because the history is there the patterns are there and the numbers of their so I just want to be clear about that I'm not here just because I I just feel something which I actually do but these are real numbers and real people we're talking about. Senator Johnson. Senator Hendren the. Under six twenty two. Inos. Violent action crimes that are in six twenty two the minimum is increased eighty percent of the sentencing. In your bill. It increases the maximums twenty percent. No same heinous crimes. Under your bill through judicial. Or just sentencing. If they can get less punishment under your bill then under six twenty two is that correct well in some cases and again you that's why my amendment did not try to change the the Enhancement that is in Senate bill six twenty two I don't have that big of a problem with the method that you're using to enhance the penalties the only point that I would have added again I it wasn't a deal breaker to me was I don't like the fact that it only enhances penalties of felonies and does nothing for crimes below that level whereas this bill would enhance many misdemeanor crimes as well so there's there's strings to both of these approaches and that again the but the fundamental as you saw the Amendment I tried to the pros. Repose was trying to send the message that this bill includes the people have been victimized I went so hung up on not saying hate crimes I went so hung up on the enhanced that message but why can't we just give comfort to those who have been victimized by putting him in if the if we say there included anyway. And follows and I feel they are covered by all identifiable groups. And. If we don't get me on labels. Individuals whether. No matter what sector wherein we don't ever get to the content of the character of the person. And labeling and sentencing or are are and and policy or whatever. It it it just. This treats everybody is all and. Labels. Separate us and divide this. And. I'm about the person and the actions of the person and and for doing right by covering those persons. Then then I'm good with that and without labels but I I appreciate you guys and and and and your efforts so thank you well thank you senator John telling I responded that is I I agree that in an ideal world we wouldn't have to have hate crimes legislation at all and it's the the labels to wire the labels necessary is because there are people who whether we like it or not don't just put labels but a tribute to those labels hatred. And say I hate these and fill in the blank whatever group that may be and so I think there is a there is a legitimate response to say when you have that type of label and then hatred towards that group of people we will respond so I again I I understand in an ideal world I think we all share the same goal that we get past those described between these groups but we don't live in an ideal world we try to craft legislation appropriately. And I I I understand what you're saying and I I have these discussions with people all the time who Idealistic as I might that people are just people. And you and I could probably create a world that we wanted that would be just great the when it comes to even this legislation. The crimes actually or that seeing that created. Even the notion of. We need to have a hate crime bill because the people who were the perpetrators were acting based on a label. I know we just say we're going to have a law that's just about everybody. To cover that person who is a victim of somebody acting on a label because keep in mind that's the only reason we have these groups carved out because of what was done to them over all the years and that created the pattern I would absolutely love to have a world where it did matter but the fact is. In III I'm a person. Who's been treated differently because of that label I'm an African American person I don't have any problem I don't want anybody to not see me I don't want my identity raced so everything will be great I wanted to be okay to see me as a black person see my face and still be okay with me. When you can't do that and you start. Criminalizing in some way out but by your actions just because of what you do see I I I I think that's that's the reason we are here and I uses this example with great. Consternation and a lot of ways and it with much hesitancy because I think it's been made such a bad thing but I trust my colleagues to accept this the way I made it because of something that's current. If you don't name what you're talking about you just don't. Know what what you are how you gonna Dodger self and the person who wants to be seen and not he raced. Has no idea that you really see that person for his or her distinction and why they are being labeled and targeted. And this is example I want to use that I hope that we don't misconstrue lately we've had a lot of discussion about black lives matter and then somebody says all lives matter. And both those things are true. And they are both incredibly important why is that. Because folks who have lived the lives of our black for a P. persons and our country have seen the disproportionate negative consequences of being the black person in the in the and that's in the country so if we don't recognize that. We don't ever know how to address that and when we say oh don't say that George all lives matter. Then it then it just becomes obscured into vagueness. And we just have a difficult time I think. Seeing distinctions without it being a negative it's like having your kids. What are your kids. Has something good or bad happening to them. You know just say all my kids matter. You do something for the one that's having something negatively done to them. You don't just include everybody that's the that's the point here I just wanted to make sure that I appreciate the effort I'd love the fact that we all believe it would be great if people are just people. But the criminals are not Pete treating people as sales people's per this law so thank you. Senator Johnson Senator Elliot. You're going to be joyous to me here senator Elliots what sprouts and I love you because your heart I don't care what anybody labels you are sees you you are an American. Right. And I'm an American. And no matter I mean there's been different ethnic groups and they've been called terrible things. And and used terribly. But all we can do is act from this point on. And change. The future. And. And if we could make that world perfect. You're never going to make me perfect. The only thing it but I'm not trying to you're never. Ito sprout three green during the you can keep working on. I certainly appreciate you and I appreciate Senator Hendren and his all right thank you. Thank you but that there are no further questions Mister chair will send flowers sunflowers. What what I will head to our sleep so central it yes the of. I appreciate all the points that you made. But. It in the classroom if so always getting bowling. Do we make a rule against Bowling or do we make a rule against Sally being bored. What I in in my classroom I may I have a rule against bullying. But if it becomes obvious that Sally is there is there is a pattern is created that people are attacking Sally billing Sally over and over again then I enhance that rule by saying we are not going to attack Sally. I do both. Thank you. She. Mr. Question SunTrust I'm I'm not. Asking for contribute we have had many signed up we'll we have a we have a the the meeting said eleven thirty we have four signed up okay just because of the time thank you. Okay. Of the store would doctor mark. Also. Say that again I said I can I can say it was a difficult match. Yeah I Mark to months of the month yeah it's going to hear it but yeah yes Sir from reading it okay the Dr Martin laws from the mosaic church you're recognized please identify yourself for the record yes Sir my name is Dr mark the mas I'm the directional leader Muzik Church of Central Arkansas here in little rock and also represent a group of at least a hundred fifty lead clergy and pastors throughout the state of Arkansas who signed on to support the passage of robust a crime legislation and I have about a two minute statement to read and if there's no other question that's great but I do appreciate Senator Ballenger your comments I because I've wrestled with that same thing this is more of a personal thing and to your point black lives matter all as matter somebody help me at a while ago think about this well you don't go to a convention about colon cancer and stand up and say well don't all cancers matter that was very helpful for me to realize it's a both and not an either or and I really appreciate is senator Hammer what you're talking about this edition and language it could be two bills but all everything I've heard in the discussion it all makes sense but it's not one or the other it's all of the above both and is what I said but that was very helpful to me Senator when I had this understanding of sometimes were dressing colon cancer sometimes prostate or whatever and at times all cancer that said let me just read my statement last year on June six we'd Pasztor clergy throughout central Arkansas gathered in Little Rock to denounce racism and injustice as part of that gathering a statement of solidarity was read and purposely affirmed by those in attendance the full statement which includes a call for the passage of robust specific and meaningful hate crime legislation in the state of Arkansas can be found on our website at mosaic church dot net along with the names of the pastors involved in that historic gathering that day the shorter statement code from the original one and with additional signatories representing Christian lead clergy throughout the state and totaling against more than a hundred and fifty and all was submitted to ever. The member of the Arkansas state legislator legislature on January twenty first twenty twenty one for this reason I'm here today on their behalf urging you to support the passage of SB three which meets such criteria as you know the bill has bipartisan support is initially the support of governor Hutchinson in so doing we urge you to reject any alternative bill where in the language and intent is not robust specific and meaningful indeed on both love and hate the Bible is clear as Christians we are commanded and thus expected not only to love god and one another but to love as well those very different than ourselves our neighbors as biblically defined by Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan as Christians we are commanded in this expected not only to look out for our own personal interests but also the interest of diverse others exits plane by the apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Philippi the apostle John goes so far as to say quote whoever claims to love god yet hates a brother or sister is a liar for whoever does not love their brother and sister whom they have seen cannot love god whom they have not seen the us as Christians we are commanded and expected to do for the least of these what they cannot otherwise to for themselves in other words it's not in doing for the advantage but in doing for the disadvantage that the authenticity of our faith and credibility of the gospel is validated in the eyes of a secular society only in this way can we hope to win the skeptic the cynic the loss to Christ through a tangible experience with the unconditional love of god this is what some one hundred and fifty lead pastors and clergy throughout Arkansas men and women white black Asian Hispanic representing churches of means and those without much suburban urban brawl alike understand not only feel logically but practically as a day not lawmakers are the ones on the front lines day engaging serving counseling comforting living with learning from. In loving on the least of these throughout our state those that are marginalised disadvantaged and most in need of additional considerations such as as B. three provides why do we support the passage of robust specific and meaningful hate crime legislation because we understand that the state of Arkansas is a representative democracy not a religious theocracy that justice is not peripheral but intrinsic to the gospel and that the very credibility of Christian witnesses undermined by the father per version of Christian values not so much perpetuated by a secular society but as in our times from within Christendom itself in short the way of Christ is not to marginalize those we do not understand but to include them not to neglect them but to engage them not to fear those we don't understand but to move towards them in and with the hope of our faith there's a fine line between faith and foolishness likewise between protecting Christian values and perverting them to a distortion or corruption what was first publicly intended therefore we want you and the citizens of Arkansas to know that this time twenty years later any failure to pass robusta specific and meaningful hate crime legislation as represented by SP three will not be due to the lack of support from Christ centered believers pastors or churches throughout the state of Arkansas but the lack of support and understanding from state legislators such as yourselves who must own that failure and perhaps forever be defined by it infers chronicles the historian writes the men of Issachar understood the times and knew what was right for Israel to do it is our prayer as well that you are state legislators will likewise understand this critical cultural moment and to what is right respectfully then we ask you to pass robust specific and meaningful hate crime legislation that is SP three for the sake of our sons and daughters our state and our Christian witness. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you I'm not gonna get into the content but I will correct record or something you said. Yeah they're going to sit there and say that is hundred fifty pastors. Some house have some insight that legislators don't making the efforts that we aren't out there community some of us legislators are actually clergymen and women. I know my good friend here actually preaches a churches I know we have doctorates in theology on this committee I know we have members who are deacons and highly members at our church I know I personally go out in the community day. So I. Whenever you in your remarks. Disparage. All the legislator as somehow being lacking compared to the work the preacher to do it which I can understand that I think that is the heart of arrogance I think that is a mistake and I said I'm not going to comment on the content of what you said I will stick up for this legislative body and not let you make a distinction between what they're form a pastor in is in community is first of what we do I think that's wrong and I think it's on this committee should not entertain thank you Mr chairman I have no question. Cerberus. Let me just say this. I appreciate your testimony that I understand to do that I read the letter that when this was put out. You do realize there are questions pastors who don't believe. This is the right thing to do. I believe what gospel you read. As a deacon. I thank you very serious. I do not hate the use to send me. Vile things. Because of the way I. Vote in my belief. So. Senator A. knows this. Because we. I was a little abrasive. Thirteen years ago when I first came here in a center a note. Did not work. With over. I didn't feel right about being a brace. So why we're not going to agree I will. This committee and those paying attention this to know. We do love people I do not hate anyone. We have disagreements. We have a way that we believe is right. Those of us who have supported six twenty two. I believe it is. Something more you get equality under the law it's yet to be saying that I think Senator Hendren said something about yet to be saying that I understand concerns. It may not go as far some want to do but. Do you not believe that there is. Efforts being made. Try to fix things but may not be as quick as you will pixel. A yes Sir from what I understand on the I think it's six twenty two what you're talking about that's a stop SP three goes farther as we talked about and was there from the beginning I just wanna be really clear I don't doubt anyone's hearts and the motivations of people in the legislature your heart of the heart of senator garner who left the room or what have you it's it has to do with methods as you're talking about has to do with how far that goes I just know that twenty five years ago I believe I would believe like what I'm hearing some of you believe in terms of how to deal with this now I think over the time as I've been you know come to live work love and engaging in our city I've been exposed to a lot of other view points and I didn't you know throw one out to go to the other side to try to find that balance and to learn from people different than myself and particularly when we talk about trusting people's hearts or knowing one another believing that I have to also trust like for instance if if joys being an African American woman me being a white man if I truly love her trust her heart then I also have to trust that she sees and understand some things that I might yet yet understand and and that's were you know coming together on that is so I certainly don't mean to disparage as I was you know suggests or it was suggested that I did I was trying to distinction between the full time work of a senior pastor Burch as others in that regard and and the the work that we do with people but having said that I don't doubt your motives I do believe that legislators here want to do the right thing I would ask how long how long do we have to wait it's been twenty years. And and there may not be this moment again and for another twenty years and so I think on behalf of those who are waiting to do you want to be seen to do want to know the your heart as a legislature your heart as a person I think you have to ask ourselves the question if not now when if not in terms of which legislative session which one and how long do we have to wait you know we being people who you know are advocating for emergency lights lease these in the ways we are but it has nothing to do with the outing hearts or or intentions but as you've talked about just the method to get there and again the timing to get the I. think now is the moment do you believe legislation stop paid. Absolutely not in that regard I mean you can't but he because from the time immemorial right people judge one another based on flesh and blood the color skin cultural heritages disagreement but I do think as you all well known perhaps but certainly I should say better than me that our laws to reflect the values and the and and so by having a lot of that is specific and is robust and is meaningful in that sense declares the value our state if you will in a way so far that we have not done that and again to the I don't know all the ins and outs of of the other bill but and so I don't mean this in about way but to the degree that becomes more inclusive or watered down again it's supposed to end in my opinion verses one or the other this would do something very significant I'll be out for state sent a very powerful message at a timely moment that you know it's come to come to me all you who are weary laden and let us give you rest but it doesn't mean you can't have another bill out to bills right but yeah so it is of course the human heart being the human heart is not going to stop eight but it would send a signal value and particular for our state thank you for your money thank you. Senator Johnson. Can I call you mark yes Sir. I Mark. Since. You're going to scripture the savior come to save and serve. Marginalized in the least. Party to come to serve all and save all the both in. Is all it is a marginalized. In the least of these the part of the all yes Sir did he come to save all who would yes Sir thank you and also to the least of these as he called out and distinction because it was just as easy as saying I came to save all he would just stop there but he also talks about the least of these just like the god had sometimes we refer to god those of us who are Christians we say god. But then sometimes we say the father the son and the Holy Spirit so those are distinctions in terms of roles in the Trinity there's one god with the three distinctions according to Christian belief so we sometimes make distinction and it's it's not aronie us and it doesn't have to be disparaging when we're talking about colon cancer versus all counselors or the father and the son verses got its ability and not either or in my opinion. Thank you for that the. Is a Christian it's it's easy to see that. The marginalized in leased. The one who has been advantaged is the hardest. For a Christian to service to save and serve. Because they're rewarded on the servers. They're the hardest. And we've got to save and serve those just like. The marginalized in the least and that's the easiest C.. As a Christian. It is not the hardest but I appreciate your testimony thank you Sir thank you. Dr Tomasz. Could you read me the last few sentences of your statement again yes Sir be glad to I and I I don't know which is our part in particular the you remember that a word I could refer to or. I know it's the last two or three sentences metaphysical or understand the times knows rates I'm sorry. I don't know what's before after the You can start there and then we can go back to we need to okay I said in first chronicles a historian writes the minute as a car understood the times and knew what was right for Israel to do it is our prayer as well that our state legislator will likewise understand the cultural moment and do what is right I respectfully we ask you to press robust specific and meaningful hate crime legislation such as SP three for the sake of our sons and daughters our state our Christian witness. No would be further back than the. paragraph before that Therefore we want you in the citizens of Arkansas to know that this time any failure to pass will be a specific and meaningful hate crime legislation is represented by AFSCME three will not be due to lack of support for the price Senate believers houses or churches throughout the state but the lack of support from state legislators such as yourselves most on that failure perhaps for a review defined by it. Yeah I was looking at that in a lot of Matthew seven do you believe you said you spoke four hundred fifty do you believe that you speak for the church in Arkansas not for the entire church no Sir. Those starter with the any failure again. Any failure to pass roba specific meaningful hate crime legislation is represented by SP three will not be due to the lack of support from price Senator believers pastors or churches throughout the state but the lack of support for state legislature will stop right there. Of. Let me stop you incorrect to. preachers kicker. We're a little more skeptical than the rest. Some of the the the. Those that are most against this. Are personal friends of mine. Who are pastors. It doesn't seem that. A failure would be the failure to pass it would then that's certainly be as your statement says because. Crosson wasn't. Place people of faith. It would could be just the opposite. Could not. Hello would you allow for this certainly what the reference has to do with is Senator Elliott twenty years ago on what she's talking about in terms of at that moment there was resistance from Christian clergy. That essentially hung up and because failure for that bill the past twenty years ago and that's the that's the point that this group wants to make at this time because failure to pass robust and meaningful legislation comes back on many of us becomes back many on on many of us in the streets and we're about Christian witness if that's what we're talking about which of course that's it's not but if it gets to that we're the ones who have to deal with that particularly full time pastors in the local church and the push back against Christianity in this country because it is perceived by many and growing numbers it would seem which leads to some of the Christian persecution because they see it increasingly as a religion of hate and not a lot and that is that is what is ultimately harmful to talk about a slippery slope that's the one it seems our country is going down the slippery slope of we're Christians yeah we're going to face increase victimization or hate crime whatever because we are not standing up for love as typically mandated in the eyes of a secular society and that is what we're very concerned with and who is not. Who is not. You said. We're not your term but the church. I'm not sure I understand would not stand up for the values of love yeah I'm saying that the Christian church Christian Christianity rule in this country as you all well know it's it's no longer like it was a hundred years two hundred years ago whatever we're in a very different moment culturally in many people increasing numbers see Christianity is not a religion of love but a religion of hate and it's precisely because of mixed signals that we sign because we speak a message of god's love and hope and faith for all people but we often undermined in our practices in churches and or in these cases are you speaking of your church no Sir then we'll do what has been a certain which churches are you speaking about it going to go there number one I've been a full time pastor for nearly forty years I work with twenty five to thirty denominations nationally at the very top levels of their leadership through another organization that I lead and started I'm very in touch with the American church across the board from the Methodist the Presbyterians of the Southern Baptist at such a all in the top and I know very many of these folks they know me so there are broad generalizations but they're not based on not personal experience and knowledge with people. But somebody's failing but is not to. No of course I'm perfectly don't fail just kidding. No of course we're just working on it every single day like that old that movie remember the Titans now we try to make it work every single day but broadly speaking generally speaking the investment of Christianity biblical Christianity with American exceptionalism that has hurt this because in our moment in this time that's why referred to the men of is a car in this time to understand the cultural moment in the shifting cultural moment I think there is broad problematic there's problematic problems that a broad scale for the general Christian church the general Christian witness in our country right now and this is validated by a number of different things. First John to. One of my favorite passages the if you hate your brother you started. Around there has referencing first on forty seven first on to as well yes Sir well first John to you can't of. How can you say that you. You love your brother if you if you do I can say love god if you don't love your brother The. How can we understand that if it doesn't get more specific. Exactly he's pretty specific if you say you of god and you hate your brother you're a liar that's first John chapter four I think one of the things that this this the thought that might be helpful for all of us to consider is at once we think individuals sickly and we think collectively some people only think individuals sickly some people only think collectively but of course balance is important so when we're talking about me let's say senator rice for instance aus I think earlier do you think I think you said this forgive me if I'm wrong but do you think that I hate people right now said no of course I don't think that or whatever that speak to him as an individual or you might say you know about me as an individual are you like that mark no okay that's us thinking individually but collectively is our state collectively is this legislator collectively as the law and so so what we as individuals might do you think or say is one thing but of course then collectively the state speaks through law or laws like this and I think both for important and can't be conflated what what do you ever as I do. Take the scripture. it's one the one the Chief scriptures I use when I'm teaching against racism how can you how can you claim you love god when you hate your brother of but however. As your the here speaking to us today. About specifics I have to extrapolate that. I have to take brother. And take it out to. Someone who's another color because not listed so therefore I don't guess I can understand it. It some of them on this in two point twelve not no no Sir not missing the point but perhaps not considering all the a preponderance of the New Testament and other teaching on this very subject so that we don't have to guess what we're talking about fusion Shakhter six you know the the Division of the doubles color flesh and blood color of skin cultural heritage this is a great tool of the devil according to Christian belief that he devises along the lines of color skin the cultural heritage we have to stand strong and resistant scheme of the double Philippians chapter to Christ and all his power position of privilege emptied himself about and came down to the to give back to those who didn't have it this is what the emptying of the Kanno sis of put the instructor to Luke chapter ten the story of the good Samaritan is not told by Jesus to tell us when someone's gone out help them it's told to answer questions who is my neighbor and the neighbor is someone defined by Jesus in that story very different than you in terms of cultural background and heritage a Samaritan stopping to help the down and out ju so no of course you're not missing the point I'm just saying there's many other validations of this understanding of of individualism versus collectivism that's how we are to think about both individually and collectively namely the church from a Christian standpoint or I would extrapolate and say the the legislature of our state to think about all people offering hope faith peace forgiveness grace mercy IT sector to all people and not just some people is is much more than just one or two verses in the New Testament no I agree with you completely all people as versus to some people you're you're exactly right of that's what it says that's what I like for things to say any other questions from committee. See non thank you doctor thank. we have Jerry called to the family council here to speak against. Thank you Mr chair members of the committee I didn't bring notes because I think I visited with most of you all about this issue quite a bit but I did want to just say few words and then I move on I'm Jerry **** I'm the director of family council and probably Senator Elliott and I or the. Ones that have probably dealt with this issue out here at the capitol more than just about anybody else in fact I sat here at this very in this very room in two thousand one. And you know we may find it hard to believe but at that time the ACLU. The ACLU had serious concerns about thank crimes bill. Do you do you know why they had serious concerns. Because they were concerned about thought policing they were concerned about when you hear the term being investigated as a possible hate crime. They were concerned about what that meant and how much that meant the government was going to be rooting around in people's business looking it with the associated with things they had said places they had been and so forth and of course of their position this change over the years ours is not we've oppose these bills over and over again for the very same reasons we've always said number one they do open the door for thought policing I live in a country where people get punished for what they do and not what they think or believe and I think this comes dangerously close to crossing that important line say the is it does create unequal justice if you will certain people to get more protection than than others you have created under equal justice. And again I've I've always thought of us living in the country we're no matter who you were what you were. The law treated you equal and that's what I believe we have people of said certain people need to be protected well yes we all need to be protected I believe we all are show me where the laws are insufficient to punish evil doers show me where we don't have enough laws to punish evil. And I'm I understand that we're all reaching for a tool. To deal with things that we see or bad everybody watched what went on last summer we all know how bad it was all around they were reaching for a tool that will make a difference will these other states all have this kind of law and the I think the proponents of this it is incumbent on them to demonstrate how this law is going to make things better here how it's going to reduce the number of bad things that people do to one another and I've said it over and over I wish we could pass a law that would deal with this stuff I really do I wish we could and reaching for that this is that this is not it. I've hesitated to bring this up but I've I've heard this miss misused twice now. When we talk about pastors who are in support of the hate crimes law in the context of this bill. That statement of solidarity that doctor to mas brought up that the said Hendren and fifty or two hundred pastors that signed last summer. They signed it last summer before anybody had ever rolled out any of these hate crimes bills thank you for a fact yeah I know you all know. That you can say I support a certain concept but maybe not that particular bill I could just as easily apply that statement of solidarity to Senate bill six twenty two I wouldn't do it because again Senate bill six twenty two had been written when that statement of solidarity was signed that statement of solidarity was two thousand words long it had one little part in there about hate crimes the rest of it was condemning all the bad stuff that was going on last summer and we all the if you read the statement you know that my pastor signed it. And so that statement of solidarity was not directed specifically toward the passage of a hate crimes law it was directed toward all the bad things that were going on last summer I've got a copy of it you can find it online you can read it for yourself it was two thousand words in this part about hate crimes is a very very very small part of that so I need to correct that because I heard that use this is the second time I've heard it used that way. it you know I didn't bring the eight hundred pastors names and hearing church leaders and others that signed a petition on our behalf when I spoke the other day against Senate bill six twenty two because of the they have a red Senate bill six twenty two and I'm not sure how they feel about that. But I do know there's a lot of sentiment out there among Christians and people go to church and church leaders you know them they don't want to ever cross that line of them being having their speech in the pulpit squelched or in any way infringed upon and I think that's part of the concern that you see on this the part of some people of faith. And so Mister chair I appreciate you allowing me to speak again on this issue maybe this will be the last time I do this and if you have any any questions about be glad entertain questions from members of the committee. To the center. Thank you Mr chairman and. Mr **** you made the requestor or statement to say show me where the law is not sufficient to punish people who are so I want to ask you we've talked about this scenario before the crime of vandalism. Two scenarios they're both going to be sub prosecuted under current law as a misdemeanor vandalism charge subject to a five thousand dollar fine and thirty days in jail or something one of them is this because these this this actually happened the family moves into a neighborhood in Fort Smith. As an African American child and a Caucasian child there's some push back from some people who didn't like that in their neighborhood. Broke in spray painted on their car get out the N. word spring ended in their car port. Vandalize their home with hateful threatening messages. There's other cases where I am personally aware of people who climbed up to school water tower and spray painted their class graduation year on the water tower. Potentially causing more damage than the other one under current law do you think it is right yes or no that those both be subject to the exact same. Annaly. Well first of all I don't believe they're subject to the exact same penalty so I think that's a that's a real strong starting point because if I'm not mistaken when you break the law there's a range of sentencing that can occur of this much to this much a find of this much to this much that's what we have judges and that's why we have ranges of sentencing so if I if I do a particularly of Regis form of vandalism there ought to be a way to say okay we're going to do the maximum penalty on that if the penalty is not strong enough for vandalism and strengthen the penalty for vandalism or do whatever we need to do to punish evil doers there's plenty of opportunity to do that and so I think the ability to punish evil doers more severely if they've done one kind of vandalism as opposed to another is already there well that's what this bill does but the penalty if there is no differentiation under the law that that the penalty is based solely on the financial damage and what I'm hearing you say is yes you think there should be a harsher penalty in one circumstance in the other but it should be only limited by that range so you're okay with a heart a harsher outcome. By using the range correct well we always that range of sentencing in in our myrtle eight murders not all the way it's the same or assault several isn't I'm okay with the law the way it is if it's not strong enough and strength in the law well that's what we're doing here thank you. Mister chairman I'm if I'm in a I think I'm probably finish with this if if any members of the committee due out or if they have any other questions I'll be glad to take controls or the rules or to testify as long we got churns that's fine I'm good with that any other I just didn't want to take up your time as chair understand any other questions from the committee. Thank you Mr chair hearing none thank you Mr ****. The we have. The good right here for me Scott Brouwer. A. P. J. M. M. I don't know what that stands for. I will probably know from now on. If you will identify yourself for the record. Background. My name is sky Brower AP JMM stands for the Arkansas peace and justice memorial movement Appreciate your time today I'm not a professional I've never done this before as a three o'clock in the this morning I don't know is going to do this so. Normally I only wear a suit to a funeral so this is a special occasion for me of that something I want to read I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Members of the committee thank you for your time today I'll try to be brief. What comes to mind when we think of a crime. For me it used to be the nineteen ninety eight dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper Texas. Our nation was horrified and the motivation of hatred could not be denied. I haven't been to Jasper but I did live in Quapaw tower as a sophomore The Little Rock Central High. My mother was actually there during the crisis in fifty seven and I grew up hearing a very limited version of events. It wasn't until I read daisy Bates biography last summer that learn the true scope and horror of the start part of our history. For the supposedly for the supposedly few bad apples who acted out of hatred toward nine black students so many others quietly supported the fight against school integration or complicit with their silence. And I do understand how difficult it was for people to speak out at the time there's a lot of fear retaliation. Wasn't necessarily that they agreed that that was what was in their hearts. But they just weren't willing to take action. My father was a traveling salesman and often had to walk home after school I didn't learn until just last year that night street was one of many historic black Wall Street districts in our country or but not even a century ago in nineteen twenty seven a young man named John Carter had been lynched shot and dragged behind car from around canis in vero. All the way to the intersection of ninth and Broadway. Just blocks from where I lived. His body was burned on a pile of P. use stolen from a nearby church. One of that innocent young man's arms was actually torn off by a bystander to to direct traffic. We're only fortunate that the hate filled mobs did not burn the whole district down as I did six years earlier to Greenwood Avenue in Tulsa Oklahoma. This is constitute hatred. I didn't learn until last summer about the Elaine race massacre of nineteen nineteen nineteen nineteen in Phillips County. Estimates into the hundreds of blacks were killed and for what because black World War one veterans assuming that they proven themselves citizens after fighting for our country. Plan to use our legal system to seek fair compensation a sharecropper's. The encyclopedia of Arkansas describes this as quote possibly the bloodiest racial conflict in the history of the United States. Now some may say today Phillips County nine street central high crisis that so many years ago not a problem today. How many of us attended the virtual national day of racial healing event just this past January governor Hutchinson was our first issue a gubernatorial proclamation. Joined by many others throughout our state. The virtual event had barely begun when the chat window became stilled with racial slurs I saw it as it happened. Repeated over and over and over again as well as complex hateful graphics constructed from keyboard characters it takes a lot of time to put that stuff together. Several participated in this clear expression of hatred and intolerance obviously planned in advance to disrupt a simple ceremony seeking racial harmony in our state. We have a national headquarters of hatred located sixty one miles southwest of here just a little over an hour's drive away. It's not have read Senate bill three and it feels incredibly fair and Sam's it simply adds the option to increase sentences and fines up to twenty percent for crimes proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been motivated by factors including race color religion homelessness sex disability or military service. Is B. three also. Or Texas accused from conviction based simply on ideology or Association alone so simply hating someone simply associating with people that hate. You can't be you can be convicted for that. Is B. three also increases protections against abuse by frivolous prosecution under this new legislation doing so or encouraging others to do so would now become a Class C. felony. I love my home state of Arkansas I love live in Little Rock Arkansas we have so many good and kind people here and I have no doubt that everyone at this table is a good time person wants the best for all. I stand with mayor Scott in his mission to United or city. Let's not stay silent again when we have an opportunity now to make a difference I'm just asking you please help us support SB three and allowing that bill to go forward today doesn't pass it into legislation it just gives it a shot let's please give it a fair shot it's the right thing to do still it's way past time. I'm certain if we stood in the shoes of so many people who have suffered over the years they would also agree it's it's really past time. Be happy to take any questions or comments thank you. Questions from the committee. Seeing none of. Mr Brower of for your first time you did quite well you're dismissed thank you Sir. Of the center Chesterfield. Thank you Mr chairman thank you ladies and gentlemen of the committee I don't delude myself this I know everybody sitting at this table and I know that this bill is not going to pass however I would be remiss if I did not come here and advocate for it anyway I've been fighting against the odds for a very long time in my life and I know that I am fighting against the odds with this bill. But you gave us a placebo that made you feel better. But the does is simply not strong enough. We need to pass this bill thank you. Any questions for Senator Chesterfield. Seeing none thank you sister Senator Chesterfield. That's all we have reform against. Of Senator Hendren central it would you like to close for the bill. I'll leave Centel to make time or do I just want to thank the committee I know this is an enjoyable this is probably something we would just a for a vote as soon avoid but I just think it was important to let people present this legislation and wide to we've we feel like there's still a lot of work today. And I as I said the other day I appreciate the work Senator Clark Senator Hickey in the others of put together on trying to find something we can pass. I hope someday we get to a point where we pass a bill that has support of. People impacted by these crimes and that's why I felt like it was important for this bill to be heard in for this testimony be allowed an opportunity to be presented so thank you for allowing me to do that. I thank you and and thank you miss sharing committee for hearing us there are some people who helped work on this bill and were very supportive and their names are not on on the bill because we didn't know where we're going to get to go with this bill and I do want to recognize that that were people like Greg Leding who's it was here in and Clarke Tucker and and to be of course was is on the bill but there are some others like you know Andrew Collins and I it for anybody whose name I don't remember I just want you to know we we recognized that you were helpful to this bill. I wanted to to other things real quickly one is to kind of correct the record because this summer I think this back in June we had a press conference about this bill when the names of those passes were presented mark to Mars cannot come back to this to this a microphone to tell you this. But there have been names added to that list since the summer nobody has has asked to take his or her name off that list and at no point has it ever been presented that everybody everything that was in the document was about this bill that's never been said and so I just want us to be clear that you know a hundred and fifty so P. R. so people have added their names and you know since that seventy people and hundred fifty so in January after S. B. three was out. This was not something that somebody did not knowing what was in the bill and when the bill came out if anybody had want to take their name off they could have but the opposite happened more people added their name to that letter so I just wanna be sure that's clear and lastly I think it's going to be really important for us as we move along as much as we want to have a country that is our ideal. We're we're not there I don't know we'll get there. But I think we ought to keep striving for it which is one of the reasons I appreciate are even having this discussion today. But the thing I think that we have to grasp. If people who are marginalized. I keep telling you. No matter how much you think. Laws or equal as was said by a by Jerry when he was here. If if if I'm in a group and I keep telling you it's not and you just keep dismissed sent my experience in telling me yes that is. It is just thank you for being a racist. And as long as we every race people who keep telling you that is not my witness that is not my life. And you don't listen because you've just decided. We're making it up. No matter what we do with this bill. I ask you please decide to listen. And don't keep say yes we are a country where everybody is treated equal our laws are equal if people keep telling you day in week after week month after month year after year listen to me my experience is not your experience. It is not equal. Please don't every race may. Because it's not your experience. I'd love to see this bill passed out of here and have a shot at somebody said. But I'm at the end of my remarks and it's up to you thank you for your time. Action from the Committee. At. Sure doesn't hear second. The bill did not pass. Mr chairman yes I make a motion to bill senator garner make a motion we do not pass this bill. The motion do not pass. The second from Senator Ballinger. Discussion. Senator Elliot. Yes. Yes. You know I thought when doctor doom Wallace was speaking. He brought scripture into a or I wouldn't have. The remarks been made many times that this country's most segregated on Sunday mornings. And because of that what you said some of what you said. Is we are speaking past each other. We're not here in each other. And I know I think we realize how much we're not here in each other we talked to you talked about black lives matters and as I've talked to friends of mines that are that are your skin color and pastors and they told me what that means to them in their personal experiences and so I get it also speak to others who have nothing in their heart against anyone of another skin color who hear it and hear something completely different that I don't think others can comprehend of and and you said you know if if you were this. The if you were in church together if you were hearing each other but we're not that's were. That being said. You know. That. What's listen. And you know Senator Hendren knows that rules of the legislature rules of committees. This hearing could have gone much different. Of. The of. The. We aired out in the lead everything that you wanted to say to be said all the witnesses everything they wanted to be so say to be said I think more needs to be said. I won't vote for a bill that creates new classes in Arkansas. I just want. Of of spelled out my reasons many times of. the the way that we continue to divide ourselves and continue of. You know this thing that you know if we could that Martin. Luther king junior said. That he wanted his kids to be valued for their character. No I I go back to that so many times if we and it's not that I don't see skin color or that you don't six control it's but I am so. The state Senate is enriched by you as much as we disagree on so many things and we work together on some things. But the Senate is written rates by you in center Chesterfield. Being. My life has been enriched by becoming your friends. And it pains me to think that just a few years ago. That would have been possible. And what not to say what a tragedy that was. That being said. We're told that legislation or resolutions. We can make resolutions. Legislation is about what we want to do with law. And. Talk about specifics as I said with people working on that other bill. Who didn't want to do anything they didn't want the other bill either. And I would be chief among them. When the language was offered. That addressed your concerns. Someone spoke up and said. Somebody murder somebody I'm not on their side. If they picked him out. Because remember that any group whether they were Republican congressman and. Playing softball or because they were transgender because they were homosexual I have no problem with them serving longer time. But we won't put classes and will. They were listening to you. And while I heard every word you said. And I understand. The reasoning and the passion behind it. Please understand. That. That the other being and centers for lows all over. Described as a possible. Is Marshall. Because. Yeah my name's on it. Rather gone home and done and said. We killed problems. But it's only because I was listening. And they give cover for other people. So what we are talking past each other. We've been listening and I hope you all will listen to. Any other discussion or Mister Mister chair I sent you call me to talk to me you know in your remarks I do think I should respond a bit Because it is it is true and so many ways that we are talking past each other but here's one of his historical things and I think the thing that is really important lot of times when I say. We are in a position perhaps not to listen and a and. What is important about this. If you are part of a group the groups who've been talking about. I will just beg to differ a bit about listening. Because for survival's sake and for the sake of being able to navigate in this society if you're part of one of those groups you have to listen because you don't have enough people and enough power not to listen and and that's one of things I've always said it's it's a it's a crude advantage I think but I think I have a real advantage having grown up in the south as a black woman is accrued advantage but I have it because I've always had to listen. That's a that's not an option I have not to listen and not to learn about the culture that is meant a majority culture I don't get that option because if I. Did not listen. It would be to my detriment. If I did not learn about. The majority culture it's to my detriment. And so to an extent you're right but I would I would just suggest to you. No I have to listen because I've been a minority all my life. And so that's just part of the deal. And and as far as Dr king is concerned we hear a lot about the content of the character and so forth but he just said so much more than that you know when we talk about. Wanted to be judged by the content of our character. This great. But Dr king was not oblivious to the fact that that's what he wanted but that is not for its reality connect us Dr king died. Fighting for people who are marginalized and who were not judged by the content of their character. And he said so much more about you know from the Birmingham jail the letter from the Birmingham jail about the people who were silent in the face of. The people who are marginalized and were not listened to. But those people. Hi and to know about the folks that could have been In a position and that were in a position to disadvantage them and and yes I think it's there's so much that we need to do but when it comes to. Difficult conversations. We don't have and we need to desperately get beyond beyond a setting like this. I would love to see the legislature to that I'd love to see us lead on that and I know that you appreciate that with the rules would be out to allow you been a non member to yes but I I I I do and that's one of the things I like about it I like about you senator Senator Hendren but you just call me out and I wanted to respond. Thank you Mr chairman and I I'm a speak on the motion to we have before the floor for the committee and do not pass motion. I've been down here for six years in the House ten years in the Senate and I've seen that done one time. It is the most hateful Petty thing that you can do to your colleagues you have a bill before you with nineteen if your colleagues is co sponsored with bipartisan support with tremendous support from people that we represent. So I know you can do what you want to do but I just want you to think about the message. That's something that parity will do. Any other discussion. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr chairman this whole process has been really Petty. Really embarrassingly Petty and very self serving. from the very beginning your colleagues back when you were part of our caucus sat down and talked to you about drafting something that that could be frankly more inclusive. And and instead of working with them you scheduled a press conference. If you include language and have the specifically provides exemptions from from hate crimes four four but I can't imagine anybody voting for this bill that exempts out child molesters rapists right to me that it in and I get why you did it I'm not not not but the bill itself of the terrible bill it's a very bad bill right and and that was brought to attention those conversations were had there's a lot of other things is brought to the attention that wasn't your plan Senator Hendren your plan was to make the news. Your plan was to become somebody real important your plan was to have this idea of everybody coming together behind the man jim Hendren and no matter what it did to your colleagues no matter what it did to your colleagues that was the direction you're going. I get it I understand and I hate the fact that all this is getting it out but the truth is that's exactly what happened Center in. Senator Hendren. German FOR immediate consideration. That's on non debatable. I have a second. All for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. The motion before us is do not pass all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried off all. Local only takes one. Senator Hendren. No Senator Stubblefield yes Senator Rice. No Senator Johnson Senator Johnson. Senator garner yes yes Is Senator Ballinger. Yes Is Senator flowers Senator flowers. For. Thank you motion fails. Of any other action from the Committee. Hearing none of. We're or done with that bill. Of. Folks we're gonna have to of we're going to take the other bills up next Wednesday of. We. We tried recognize everybody before we ran this bill who was here. So we put this bill at the end of Paula Jones we will be glad to put you on next week's.