State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Is the the last time that we're planning to planning to have any amendments heard will hope to finish up today worked at point the session if somebody hasn't really stood up to say what they want to do this option is there really helped morning run it and so if you've heard anything please help the chair by let me know if you have heard from someone because we want to be fair and equitable equitable to everyone Yes Sir. Your chairman so or is this gonna be somewhere where you here on and we come back for a voter Ramai kind of day we hear all the amendments vote on this exactly right Senator Garner so that what we've been doing since the beginning is trying to get them heard and then if we see some consensus building that the committee wants to seriously consider any particular one or several that we would make a commendation come back for a little bit more robust testimony when there actually is a vote as you know it has been done different ways in the past I feel are good the Committee seems to be communicating well together with each other so what we want to do is get these heard and then we will talk about any consensus that might be building in the body for us taking thing up so with that Senator Tucker you're recognized for presentation of S. J. R. six. And. I think there it is it's a little further in your if package of members looking for you're recognized Sir if you would take for force thank you Mr chair. This is a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish open primaries in Arkansas first all kind of describe the way that it would work under this amendment and then sort of at least my rationale for. The way that would work is that when voter walks into the polling place on primary day the voter could vote for any candidate they want whether they're Republican and Democrat independent or anything else. in that primary this will not change the dates of those primaries and then the two candidates who got the most votes on the primary day with that in advance to the general election no matter what their party affiliation was so you could have two Republicans on the ballot in November two Democrats two independents or whatever the case may be so. That's the way it would work it would not affect presidential elections or municipal or local office would just before the federal congressional offices state county and then prosecutorial and judicial elections. So that's the way that would work. the reason I kinda like it is because I I think it empowers our voters right now and I've heard from a lot of people who walk into a ballot box on primary day and they want to vote for one person who's maybe running for sheriff as just say hypothetically as a Democrat but then they want to vote for Congress or governor or whatever the case may be four Republican and they can't do that they either have to choose a democratic ballot. Or a Republican ballot and that's it another reason I like it is because a lot of elections and I'm just speaking generally across the country. Obviously we can only affect Arkansas but I don't mean to pick on any particular race or party or anything just generally a lot of elections are decided in primaries at this point. And when that's the case voters who do not vote in that primary don't functionally have a say in who their elected official is because that Alexion is decided before they have a chance to vote in the general election in November and with this. In those districts where you have. Really. Powerful performance by a political party you have two candidates from that same party on the ballot in November it gives every voter in that district opportunity participate in that election and have their voice heard as to who their elected officials are so that's just and I don't want to go on too long that's the short short rationale for the bill I've heard from Democrats and Republicans both that they don't like it which makes me think I may be on to something there's a few states that have adopted this could in Louisiana California so that also covers really kinda both ends of the spectrum. But that's a that's it in a nutshell I want to take too much of the committee's time I understand there's a lot of constitutional amendments on the on the table I just wanted a chance to make a short presentation about I'm glad to take any questions you **** mansion Louisiana and California. What's the total number of states. The last time I looked and it's been a few years Mr chairman the last time I looked it was four and it was Louisiana California Oregon and Washington Louisiana is is like it's really kitchen all. It's a slow moving process I've got Senator Ballinger for questions and senator garner. I know we're not voting today but at the I want to make sure this one was dead would be appropriate to go take a motion to do not pass or or table it is. I'm just getting. Well I don't know I'm not entertain its committees pushy but senator garner. Thank you so mention looting and I live close losing in a twenty minutes away and I actually have people I know very well who both Louisiana and they say their jungle primary is a disaster it is twenty different cancers there's usually hard to figure out who is what the party affiliation go by the wayside what I hear from people whose who have over there before now moved Arkansas is that they like knowing what the candidates stand for for a walk in there and by the time you get past that primary which is all lower collection participation the general election usually decided and it takes away their decision to have the real debate for the general concern you dress the problems with that I see with jungle primaries. Well I think there's obviously a lot of very legitimate differences of opinion about this. The problem that you're describing is really kind of the problem that I see in the current system that we have where the election is decided before the general in the primary where there is lower turnout voters. because somebody just races are decided on the primary and not in the general and and a really disenfranchises the. The voters who don't participate in that party's primary because that decision is made an election that they don't have a chance to participate in where is everyone has a chance to participate in the general election so really the problem it and again you know people in Louisiana may know more about it than I do but probably describe is really the one I'm trying to solve I want them the highest number of people to participate in the election that's in November and so if you have just for example I think there'd be a lot of districts in Arkansas right now clearly where there would be two Republican candidates on the ballot in November. And the. And in that race and they would be probably a few cases maybe where there would be two Democrats on the ballot but more Republican at this point but in that case everyone who lives in that district would have an opportunity to participate in that election rather than only that that party's primary voters under the system could you have somebody who never got a majority in election be able to present themselves on the general election ballot in theory you could have twenty candidates and somebody gets five percent could be the second place finisher and go the general election and that's true that is true if there's a there's a large number of candidates in the race okay thank you Mr thank you senator Tucker you weren't around obviously during this time but I don't recall in the past probably twenty or thirty years they're being a move in the state to pursue this so why now. Well Representative Douglas form representative Dan Douglas actually it has introduced this a couple times in the last few sessions I know he introduces a joint resolution as the House one resolution last session and so. I think. Quite frankly I think partisanship. George Washington addressed in his farewell address right he was the one thing that he thought could really hurt our country and I you know I'm a member of a political party I'm not denigrating political parties but I think partisanship has gotten to a point in our country where it says it it's causing some harm. And I'm not singling anyone any party out I think it's on all signs and to me this is a step to try to rein in the partisanship a little bit. Okay one of the things that I can get brought up you know we actually have adopted some nonpartisan races here I remember when it dealt with the prosecutors seven years ago and one of the things that I get brought up from the public is they don't know what these people believe. And so how do you respond to That question and that concern that it's all in some of them I believe it's almost trying to hide basically what these folks might believe so there is some virtue at least knowing that you support a particular platform or not so would you say the voter in Arkansas who says we want to know what these people believe in part of that is knowing exactly what party they identify with what would you say that. Well this proposal was not would not change anything about. How about how person is represented on the ballot as a Republican a Democrat it's true I guess my question with the nonpartisan ash I just see it is I've also receive these is the same similar to yes that way yes I understand your concern and as I said I think there are. the. Very legitimate differences of opinion about this sure members any other questions Senator Bledsoe. Thank you Mr chair directed it. Just the recent to what you're talking about the conversation there would you not assume that. Someone that really wanted to. Run for office within change parties to do that and so you really wouldn't know what they believe anyway would that not be something that could happen because I know it has happened in other for instance in the races with judges. If someone before then would come and say I. You know it's a in this area of Republicans win more than Democrats so I'm going to come Republican because how we would you not say that that could also Hampton. In when you're trying to decide what people believe. I do think that that could happen I think it probably does happen I don't think this would have a huge effect on on that I think for a long time in Arkansas people who want to run for office and be elected ran as Democrats right and I think now a lot of people run as Republicans who want to win and I I'm not I'm not criticizing that on on either count I just think that's the reality and the so I I think that exists Senator Bledsoe and you're absolutely right it does I don't think this would have a huge effect on that thank you. All right is there anything else you'd like to present this morning on this now Mr appreciate your time in the committee so all right we appreciate his or anyone like to speak for against this at this time. Seeing a member somewhere you'll be cheered senator garner Sir Clark is is handling legislation another committee and so will take up thirteen fourteen now. If. Senator Rapert you're recognized to present your resolution all right members represented Gazaway actually and when you come down as well so he may be a and just as I speak to Mister would you mind if the president Gazaway president has where you can see to table. We appreciate you for taking a few moments and and for his representative Gazaway purpose we know we're just hearing these know what's being taken on today and so wanted present this to you I want to go ahead and give my comments on this amendment and appreciate represent Gazaway he is also on the house in on these bills and as we all know in and to be honest with you these comments really relate to both thirteen and fourteen we have we're in a posture right now we're it seems that Washington DC does not appreciate our second amendment rights as they have in the past few years under previous administrations as well as religious freedom and so I want to keep my comments on each of the bill so it relates to the second amendment this simply states that amendment to the Arkansas constitution to provide that the citizens of the State of Arkansas have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms ammunition and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms for the defense of their homes person's family and property for the common and indivisible defense and for hunting and recreational purposes this obviously is supportive of the second amendment in support of of our own values here in the state of Arkansas as it relates the right to keep and bear arms and this is further clarifying this in our constitution I always hope that everyone that serves elected office absolutely supports the bill of rights to our US constitution and supports these fundamental rights but sometimes that's not the case and so this is an opportunity for us I think that all of you have received the emails that I have there are people in this state that are asking us for the opportunity to have Arkansas be a sanctuary state and there's. Asking for us to do what we can to further support the second amendment and our right to self defense and so this is what this amendment the essence of the amendment and I would your now represented Gazaway he may have some other legal comments on the bill. Senator Garner oh yes so you're recognized source of. Thank you Mr chairman and thank you Senator Rapert I. think you gave in an excellent opening. what I'd like to do is discuss really the specifics of the amendment where it came from and why I think it's so important if you look at article two section five of our current Arkansas constitution. It up it's really. Very weak with respect to the statement that we have on gun rights of course in the US constitution we have the second amendment. And which gives a strong statement about our right to keep and bear arms which says that that right shall not be infringed. We look at the Arkansas constitution the statement back to gun rights against bound in article two section five which says and I'm paraphrasing some extent that the citizens of the State shall have the right to keep and bear arms comma. For their common defense period. That's the entire statement in the Arkansas constitution about the right to keep and bear arms I it's not nearly as strong of a statement as what's found in the US constitution. And I think we would all agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that the people of Arkansas hold sacred it's one that we believe in very strongly in this state and it's important that our constitution especially the day in a day and age in which we live when we see the attack that's happening especially from the federal level on our second amendment rights that we have a very strong statement in the Arkansas constitution about our right to keep and bear arms. Other things is brought to my attention during this debate was apparently there's an old Supreme Court case you can look it up this call buzzard versus state is from the eighteen hundreds where the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court at the time opined that the way that language in Arkansas constitution is written the citizens of the State shall have the right to keep and bear arms comma for their common defense. It was interpreted to at the time to means that. People in Arkansas have the right to keep and bear arms essentially for the purpose of organizing a militia. Lena like we see that language in the US constitution that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense meaning that it wasn't an individual right and so that's why some of the language that's in this amendment is so important and I want to go through some of that this amendment would say the citizens of the State shall have the right to keep and bear arms. For the common defense I'm sorry. For the common defense have a fundamental right this is important I think there's an error in the language they're citizens of the State shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that's to be a fundamental right. And why that's so important is. Fundamental rights are rights that in order to place restrictions on them have to meet the strict scrutiny test recognized by the Supreme Court and I think everyone would agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right but we need to make a strong statement about it in Arkansas constitution so that in the future if there are attempts to place restrictions on those rights they have to meet that strict scrutiny test. And so what is that strict scrutiny test the strict scrutiny test means that the government has to articulate a compelling governmental interest to restrict those rights and that that compelling governmental interest has to be narrowly tailored to achieve those results and so it's a very high burden that the government has to meet to put a restriction on those rights and so that's why it's very important to recognize in our constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Some of this language came from a Missouri constitutional amendment that passed in twenty fourteen so that the next part of the language that you see the right to keep and bear arms ammunition which I think is very important because what good are arms if you don't have the ammunition. To to make the arms useful and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms again that's language that came from the Missouri constitutional amendment that passed in twenty fourteen. And then we say for the defense of their homes person's family and property and for their common and individual defense and that individual that the word individual there is is very important it's very is deliberately placed there because we want to recognize and an overturned that old Supreme Court opinion from the eighteen hundreds that said that basically the right to keep and bear arms is only for common defense for the organization of a militia for the National Guard for instance no we will make it very clear that the individual citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and so it's very important that we have the word individual there. For their individual fit defense and for hunting and recreational purposes hunting is already recognized in our constitution but but we double protected in Arkansas if we pass this. The second part of subsection B. you'll see the rights guaranteed by this section shall not be denied nor infringed by the state of Arkansas or by any political subdivision of the state of Arkansas that's very important we see some of the cities to you know try to do things and go around the state we wanna have a very strong statement again in our constitution that not only protects against infringements that we'd see on the state level but would protect against infringements that we would say I try to come from the local level the next sentence very important the rights guaranteed by this section are unalienable. And what we recognize is the right to keep and bear arms is one that we have because it's the right to self defense it's the right to self preservation and those are natural rights those are things that we all should all have as human beings the right to defend ourselves the right to self preservation and so their natural rights and so we say you know as we as a seven the. the bill of rights that these rights are unalienable. And then we end with any and all restrictions on the rights guaranteed by this section again will be subject to strict scrutiny standard. And the state of Arkansas so we put a burden on the state of Arkansas the state of Arkansas and all political subdivisions of the state shall uphold and defend these rights guaranteed by this section and shall under no circumstances declined to protect against their infringement some of that language comes from the Missouri constitutional amendment that was passed and again in twenty fourteen where they made a much stronger statement in their constitution and so again I think this is good language that really strengthens. They are right to keep and bear arms and Arkansas constitution one make one last statement. Which is that you know there's an old saying you time to make cases while the sun is shining. And we see what's happening at the federal level and the in the State of Arkansas right now we have a Republican super majority in both houses We have the opportunity to pass not only legislation but in this case referred out Constitutional amendments that will protect and help the people of Arkansas on this is something that would be I believe enjoy. Very strong support among the population and the people of this state it will make a much stronger statement in Arkansas constitution and it will help us in the current environment that we're in the time to do it is now we have the ability to do it now and we should do it now with that I'm happy to answer any questions the question committee Senator Ballinger recognized. Thank you Mr you're familiar with section twenty nine and insert a rate per night is about it where where basically said an Austrian enumeration of right and let me say this that like what we're talking about an article two is basically our bill of rights right and I have done doesn't. Riding in study on it over time and and I've come to be very affectionate article to like because it's in so many ways it it It states things I think better okay you know you hear us talk about how property rights are above any other. Institutional authority well that comes out of article to the of the religious rights of article two is beautiful like you've got to read it it's really good and then on in section twenty nine it basically says you know that well I'm treated the numeration rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others I'm sorry hold on three. Okay it is twenty nine we get in here with C.. All right so this is the second half of article it is in our quickly nine is as we declare that everything in this article is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain in violate that all laws country there to or other provisions herein contained shall be void so what it's saying is article two yeah basically reigned supreme in the constitution and article two can't be amended now there is there is discussion out there about whether or not the constitution or any provision can declare itself so that it can't be amended so there's there's definitely general powers however I think that if you're going to exercise and I think that most judges would it would agree and I I'd like to hear your point on this they would say you have to first amend that section out before you can make any other members of the constitution so you have to have to get that changed before you can constitutionally amend anything else or else whatever you put on it's going to get thrown out in violation of the existing constitution. Eight and let me say this you know I disagree with that the court decision just like our second amendment at one time owned by some people were interpret it that way we're blessed to have a better court today. Here in Arkansas we're blessed to have the court today I imagine that that would be interpreted much like our US secretary constitution as as the individual rights that you individually have that have that right for common defense in and while I like all your language is great I don't I don't have a problem with any of it it in and if it were in our constitutional ready I'd say Hey that's a win but but to amend article to amend article do sentiment article two four just to amend article too so the future someone can amend Ark two then you're not only put that at risk you put every other protection an article to at risk because now all of a sudden it's not a not a a a a sort of a sacred text of Arkansas that we can't we can't go in and touch and change your understand what I'm saying. I do the deal would respond yes okay I think you bring up an interesting point You know I think they're it there would be obviously some type of constitutional crisis if that interpretation that you gave held that that section clearly cannot be amended but yet the people of the state by are referred constitutional amendment voted to change the constitution so I think you in over there would be arguments about sovereignty you know obviously if the legislature we have the power to refer out Constitutional amendments if the voters pass this amendment I fully expected we referred this out they would pass. I think the argument that you would have is. The constitution is a document that's designed to reflect. The rights of the people and if the people does the sovereign. People this state vote that these are the roof this is the rights that we want to see reflected in our constitution regardless of any provision that's there I think it would create maybe to some degree some constitutional crisis that's a new legal theory I've never heard that. I'm not saying you're incorrect and I think it's interesting issue. If we would need to amend the other section first I think that would bring up an issue about you can't log roll you can't maybe you can't put that in the same Amendment is this and that may take another committee and and that's honestly you couldn't you couldn't put in the same one because I mean. Constitutions are actually set out to enumerate rights are set up protect rights right under in the in the way they do it is they constrain government may limit our ability to act in this is specifically says we can't do that right that that you can't adopt that it now maybe you can amend that to adopt right so and because a large role in the corporate center station I think you basically have to go article two section twenty nine and amend that they come back two years later and in that but when you meant that you take that out all those other nice enumerated rights we have an article to which is really sweet I mean it's it I mean it it's it's like it's like our or bill of rights only only with better and more language for everything subsection five I don't disagree that I wish section five was was when I put in was more clear however the simple language that is section five it's pretty good it's not I don't I I I agree that it a court has misinterpreted just like that with anything else but I don't think that court would hold the same interpretation of that. So I guess my response to areas I mean I that's a novel legal theory I've never heard that before I am I mean honestly it's not I mean I as part of the ceiling at the you may campus where we talk about constitutional also that was a whole segment we talk about whether or not whether not a a constitution can prohibit itself from being amended right so that was that was a discussion generally the people on the panel agreed that it probably can't prohibit it from being amended the question then as and and actually meet Matthew Miller and I have this conversation about something else. The the answer alternately came down to you have to amend the constitution to allow for the amendment before you can amend the constitution or whatever provision or whatever sins Ballinger on that again black representive Gazaway stated. We did discuss it I mean you're right what what I haven't had is bill or anyone who's in as you know they're very free to often say. We've drafted this but it's unconstitutional I've not had anyone appear to be on that I think that we should talk about it sure it really talk about it see but again the normal impediments that are given to us to say what you're attempting to do cannot be done you're going to run into a wall they haven't mentioned that so I think it would be worth the sitting now appeal are and having a discussion about that you see if there's any other cases that they did it because surely we're not the first you know to be honest with you and to the to all the members we're charge to discuss constitutional limits I think our constitution's been amended to many times in Arkansas but when it comes to fundamental issues like this and I know how you feel about it Senator Ballinger if there is a pathway for us to further clarify it and ensure that the people of Arkansas or in stand very strongly on this this is why I agreed to put my name on this particular amendment I think honestly the solution I and I'm sorry come take a leeway but the solution may be in in consider this is not amending article to it all and just it in in certain other provision within the constitution I wondered about that has that is designed for your early you know some of the rights of gun rights which we we did that with the hunting before so as you know your argument that that affect somehow so you know amend another provision but if it would be considered to be contradictory to that section then you still run into article two if you're being so you'd wanna make sure it's consistent with that only you only you know more information I think that's a good point I mean that maybe one way around it maybe we don't amend article to we would set this out in this in a new separate section of the constitution you may refer to article to to say that this expands the the statement of rights set out in article two section five. and we just make it in its own separate section of the constitution but I think where there's a will there's a way and again I would hate to let another legislative session go by recession after that a recession after that and not make a stronger statement on gun rights in Arkansas constitution this will be something that would be very popular with the voters of the state the current statement that we have I do not think is adequate and again you gotta make hay while the sun is shining and that's today and I think that this is a good amendment that would I enjoy broad support I would just appreciate everyone's consideration on Senator Ballenger Mister chairman I'll just tell you you know we just in the past few days we Senate president the United States state that if he doesn't get a filibuster judgment in the US Senate if they don't do away with that he's very willing to use executive orders that would violate second amendment rights in many ways I think we an emergency situation in the country and I think that you can see many many states take up what was your did a few years ago what we're proposing now and so I would appreciate the committee's consideration we have the unique situation right now in the Senate that we get to opportunities and so regardless of what would sign anything else I definitely think that this would be a good option for us to consider moving for thank you have a question you may create a fundamental right to honey and. Amendment eighty eight we traded a right to hunt the State of Arkansas but there's a specific provision for amendment thirty five which create the Arkansas game and fish allows to promulgate rules and laws dealing with honey. This would supersede amendment at thirty five which means you're creating a fundamental right under strict scrutiny which a court would examine what supersede a member thirty five basically get rid of the Arkansas game and fish in creating a higher standard and threshold for the right to hide not saying I'm for or against that but is that your intention to do that with this because my reading is if your credit fundamental right and it can can't be done by the state of Arkansas and it can't be done it is under strict scrutiny units in a double that would severely injured member thirty five and what the game fish should be able to promulgate too low so if your content to do that then that's fine I just that would create a a issue for doing that. Well and that again I I think that's one interpretation I would disagree with that interpretation the roll the rights that we're creating is the fundamental right to keep and bear arms now there are things that you can use those arms for which we specifically enumerate which includes defensive person defense of property defense of your home and hunting but you know I would disagree with the interpretation that it would supersede in other sections of the constitution or you know. It obliterate the game and fish commission I think that would be an extreme interpretation of what this amendment would do. So you're saying it doesn't credit fundamental right under strict scrutiny too hot I think it creates a fundamental right to keep and bear arms under strict scrutiny and one of those things that you can do with those arms which we enumerated in the in the amendment is to hot and so if I'm using my arm behind. In any kind of situation where that could be interpreted by law when it be infringement on the right. I think there would be an argument for that thank you. More questions committee. Senior center are you closing the resolution close for this research thanks for hearing the move on Senator G. R. fourteen Senator Rapert you're recognized yes I would basically state to you to. Reiterate the remarks that I've made as it relates to what's going on in the country currently obviously we have freedom of religion enumerated in the very first amendment to the United States constitution it's very very important just to add something to this that I've not said this morning that we haven't said had said in the session one of the things that is important to me we have seen a tremendous amount of discussion debate and and I would say contention is happening right now in the country as it relates to freedom of speech which in the first amendment we not only have the freedom of speech we have the freedom of religion and an article that recently was published it is of concern to me is that when you look at social media it is not just ban of political speech that has been censored and then some of the platforms of people that their entire voices have been canceled I know in one particular situation I believe it was life site news and if I misquote that you correct me will clean it up in the future but I believe it is life site news we're they were talking basically from a religious perspective and Google literally wiped out their entire platform on you too and lost all of the videos that they had had put up for years on there took it away from them in so we had a situation right now and I know that it's very contentious but with all due respect I'm an ordained minister of the gospel I was ordained before I ever got into politics and when I preach on certain passages of scripture today. There are people that will say that I am a big it. And I am using hate speech simply for reading provisions in Romans chapter one or Leviticus twenty. And that's wrong is we reached a point in and public discussion whether as a small segment of the population that is continue to beat this drum that what they disagree with religiously is hate speech and this is why that we bring this is one of the reasons why that we bring this amendment today which is to have an amendment to the Arkansas constitution to create the Arkansas religious freedom amendment and to provide that government may never burden a person's freedom of religion except in rare circumstances that the government industry said application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling government interest is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest I want to say a couple more words about this when you look at the provisions in the bill on page two about a very interesting. When you look at lines twelve through fourteen it states that federal and state laws neutral toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise my same concerns there is with the second amendment if Arkansas is not fully clear and clarifying our position on wanting to protect this we may see some courts in some judges decide that since you're not critically or your neutral on the issue therefore that leaves an open door we passed a religious freedom restoration act here a few years ago and all of you that we're here remember how we got to a certain point and pass that in we were told by the executive to go back and to do it over and so. If everyone were angels. We wouldn't even need a constitution or law anyway would with. But we know that they're not they were dealing with a situation where more and more. We see antagonistic actions taken against people of faith in the country I want to yield for some of the legal discussion on this representative Gazaway and also believe that you may have someone signed up to speak for this particular amendment. Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman again what this bill sets out I think from a legal standpoint as much like we were just talking about with the second amendment the right to free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that is a sacred right it's a natural right that we have just as human beings the right to. the free exercise of our religion and to worship as we choose and so what this bill does this proposed amendment would do is just like we talked about with the second amendment to say that if government attempts to put any restrictions on those rights that it has to meet that strict scrutiny standard which is the government would have to be able to articulate a compelling governmental interest to put any restriction on and that that compelling governmental interest would have to be narrowly tailored you know in in in the most narrow way to achieve that purpose and again we want to make that very clear set out our constitution that that's how we feel about any restrictions that would try to be placed on our right to. Exercise. Religion as we as we see fit and I think it's appropriate thank you would certainly be a good change but I think of what would be more beneficial to everyone here would be if I yielded my time I think Mister Jerry Cox's here and would like to speak on this and he's certainly very knowledgeable about it. moved to questions and then we'll move to Mr **** I have one start I think Senator Ballenger with this and also your self defense constitution amendment is this an attempt. To push back on the federal government because issue I see is as you will note the federal government can basically ignore our constitution when they come to enacting federal legislation and going off the federal constitution through incorporation is is it your desire to kind of push back with this because it seems like if the court wants to find a reason around this on the federal level they can what we put this morn stoner compared to what we already have is. Thank you dress a concern so I think it's both them and I think yes clearly we want to make a strong statement Arkansas constitution so that if we see restrictions for any level whether that's the federal level at the state level that we made it clear in Arkansas all the way we feel about religious freedom and we feel so strongly about it that we put in our constitution and so if there are those challenges I mean even you know restrictions that we see from the federal government we as a state of Arkansas can hold up our state constitution and say we made a very strong and clear statement about how we feel about that the state of Arkansas and it sets up a I thank you a constitutional legal challenge that you say between conflicts between the federal government in the state governments and it's one thing to have a statute it's another thing to have it in your constitution we so I think you know as we see restrictions come down from the federal government it's one thing to waive the statute in federal court and say this is what we have in Arkansas it's another thing to pick up the state constitution say we have in our constitution what we already have a religious liberty freedom of speech within our constitution today correct. Yes and are are those interpreted by the court as strict scrutiny as we currently have going back to law school took first in the class in this office the not first amendment one from a state court the standard for any kind of bill of rights was always strict scrutiny. As it is in and how the federal courts do I don't know about second ma'am out dog I'm I'm blanking that I know for religious freedom for first amendment rights typically strict scrutiny already corrected yes okay since your Garner on that issue and and I'm gonna make that I'm gonna use a real life example make this very clear The tenth amendment. Has been totally ignored and been trampled been traded over the past several generations in this country I don't know why well let me restate that I do know what I do know why that they ignore that is because there are often times that the five hundred and thirty five and Washington DC think they know better than all fifty states and when it suits them. On any number of issues I will tell you separate issued to take it away from just issues you McCarron Ferguson act CareFirst an act that was passed by Congress in the nineteen forties is that insurance is regulated by the states guess what happened when president Barack Obama was president. Totally ignored. Produce the ACA totally ignoring the fact that the McCarran Ferguson act they're one of their own acts of Congress should pay insurance is regulated by the states period full stop. And they ignored that so when the National Council of insurance legislators which by the way is a little over fifty years old now it was it was stood up to support the National association of insurance commissioners on the state based former regulation for all insurance which we deal with an insurance and commerce all the time the tenth amendment has been ignored. In we need a revival of the tenth amendment in this country. To also remind the federal government that was the states that created the federal government not vice versa real life example and then I will because I think that the of the amendment is represent Gazaway stated in we're tempting to do further clarifies because we have a crisis right now the federal government continued to encroach upon rights I think you're going to see a real crisis developed amongst the state and the federal government if they continue down this path in the tenth amendment will become the rallying cry once again in this nation on any number of different issues because they are ignoring us let me give you an that real life example of in our cans and. Who I believe is having his own fundamental rights in his faith attacked in a very formal way and that's me. All of you don't know on here that recently I received a demand in a federal lawsuit being brought against me by the American atheists. In that lawsuit brought against me one section of the discovery wants me to divulge everything I've ever written I've ever made a note of its ever been laid out that lists the word Christian. Godless. Atheist it's a full page of terminology and I recall for you that when I was asked to come and be deposed I was pulled into federal court over a ten commandments monument the ten commandments are on the US Supreme Court on the actual chambers on the lower left or right of the door and because that I've helped pass the ten commandments monument and because I've helped raise the money for that many of you in here did do. They brought me in for eight hours the American humanist the American atheists the freedom from religion foundation the satanic temple in the ACO you went after me. And those that were in the room could tell you that ninety five percent of their time they spent talking about me as a Christian. And an ordained minister and what right did I have. To be a sitting state legislator and to support act twelve thirty one that all of us passed. They spend all their time hassling me because I was a Christian in this role I believe in so many words I ask them. Where the rest of my colleagues. They have believed to be in the voted for this in so even a sitting state legislators senator garner. Is being singled out. In being hassled. And they want to hurt me financially and they want to kill my spirit to keep speaking up for the things we believe in all because I helped pass ACT twelve thirty one the many of you did here to. And I'm not even protected from that kind of hassling and they're doing it through the federal court this is why not only the current status but my own perspective in my own experience there should never be a time when senator garner Senator English or Senator Davis for any of you sitting at this table should be brought in and be really malign and hassle over your own personal faith because you voted for a law that stands on its own. This is why that when I saw this it was asked to be a part of this I said you know what we duty to reinforce this and I think there's coming a real tough time in this country and all of these rights are going to have to be fought for and and solidified I appreciate you let me share personal side of this because sometimes we forget these are the kind of things that are going on that sometimes or never known by the larger public because it's being done in a court action against an individual. Yes our account for move on to represent her Senator Ballenger you know the Fourteenth Amendment of due process came after I'm agree which you tenth amendment should be something we lean back on by the courts unfortunately the federal level over and over again has said they have expansive powers my concern is not that I disagree with this amendment is that are we doing something that will actually be enforceable by the federal court I just do not see a scenario where if they want to rule against you they're not gonna do it you'll still be driving at federal court we passes not and understand your your point behind doing this I think. Legislatively of changing things and holding agencies accountable and having more maybe this will make it stronger would be the way to do it since we have only have finite amount of these cost to each member and so I'm not disagreeing with your intent I'm just one of the practical effect is represent our Senator Ballinger recognized. Thank you Mr I just wanted to point out if you if you look on page four line fifteen down how you treat this is what you probably should you to do the second ma'am bills well so obviously we have a have a really strong provision in article to dealing with the right conscious and it and and so instead of it because and I get into the building after drafted this way because they didn't want this to be seen as modifying that language and specifically excludes article two section twenty four out of it and and this is this should be the same way I think that you do the ad in the you know from I had when we ran the refer a the first time I think it's a set time fail fail to believe I don't remember but one of them ran referred we referenced article two section twenty four. An attorney committee made the comment the said you know look what you're doing here you're taken that dormant clause in the constitution you're bringing it up again right so the so the value of this religious liberty amendment even though we already have article to which is the the language in there it's great an article to the language is not specific where where that you have in here which brings us to a strict scrutiny standard the court will understand exactly but but it is you're on the courts just like that attorney tend to sometimes ignore the parts of it that is not being brought up on rape regular base of the value in this would be to come in file it again with the specific language to make it where the courts would have to take a look at not not that I mean this would change our law at all because we have reference but this within take refer us essentially and put it into the constitution so that it's not easily modified down the road when when people aren't nearly as wonderful as we are right this. Anymore questions committee. Senate senator representing close for your bill we're closed now and like to yield I think we have at least one person test yes I'm sorry about that is cocked you're recognized. Thanks. Yes yes. You're recognized the other testimony thank you. Thank you Mr chair with your permission I have to yeah hand on our that there passing around it. will help speed my testimony along a little bit. My name is Gerry **** I'm executive director of family council and we are here in Little Rock in. Being passed out you'll see a policy brief in that you'll see a list with about ten things on there. I want to referred referred to the policy brief and of course many of you on this committee or aware of the debate that occurred out here in the year twenty fifteen with and I had the privilege of working with Senator Ballenger and Senator Hester primarily and others on the religious freedom restoration act that is a part of Arkansas law right now. Pretty much this amendment. Elevates that religious freedom law I am puts it up into the constitution it's not exactly like that law in fact it may be a little bit stronger. But this particular amendment is patterned after one that has been on the in the constitution in Alabama since the late nineteen nineties so really over twenty years the state of Alabama has had a very similar amendment to their constitution and as far as I know there been no bumps in the road no difficulties with it no problems that we're aware of. Senator garner I you know I I've asked the same question that you've asked about some of these amendments and you know we I say. Well we can pass the use of the federal government can just come in and have little rate them in court and I suppose that's true with our pro life amendment amendment sixty eight and the other good laws that we passed here. But here's what I've discovered also known as you guys know that this to. Once we pass an amendment it serves as a guide from then on for this body about policy and I think about the good pro life laws have been passed and how amendment sixty eight has guided those because it talks about protecting the life of every unborn child and so I think by elevating religious freedom to a point where it becomes an amendment to the constitution it does give future legislatures something to latch on to and say you know we're going to we're going to uphold this. The the good thing really about having this in our constitution to is what I believe senator garner asked earlier is this an effort to push back against the federal government and I believe represent Gazaway said yes it's that and other things too and I would wholeheartedly agree that I believe there will come a day. When we wish we had an amendment in our constitution that specifically protects religious freedom. Because I think we're all we all have this sense of knowing that religious freedom by some is being viewed as kind of second class it's like yeah you got the freedom of speech and you've got freedom of the press though those are really cool first class rights and then you say what about freedom of religion and people say well that depends. And they start wanting to hedge on that and say you know we ought to be able to force you to violate your religious beliefs your conscience and it's not always been that way in this country that we're all aware that in previous generations. You can have the let literal survival of our nation at stake in a person could still be a conscientious objector name might still have to serve but he wouldn't have to take up arms that's how much all the way back through the history of our nation we have valued the freedom of religion in the right of a person to stand on what they believe because if we don't have the ability to act on our sincerely held beliefs than do we really have freedom it do we really have freedom if we can't act on our sincerely held beliefs or if the government even worse is going to come in and tell us you can't act on those beliefs and so. I've I've compiled a list it's the other page that you have here and I I I would call that to your attention it has ten items on their. And I think we've sort of been lulled into complacency over the last four years because some of the attacks on religious freedom that were occurring under the Obama administration just sort of seem to go away when Donald Trump took office well they didn't just happen by accident a lot of those were deliberate actions on the part of that administration to dial back the attacks on religious freedom. I think we can expect those to be dial forward and ramped up and I'll just go through the list very briefly I think we can expect a repeal of the trump administration's twenty seventeen read religious liberty guidance for executive agencies. The result of that could be that adoption and foster care agencies would have to place adoptive foster children with same sex couples against the belief of those faith based adoption and foster care agencies number two I think we could see a repeal of the health and Human Services guidelines that protect religious beliefs and policies of hospitals clinics and doctors. I think in in that we could see faith based hospitals being forced to violate their doctrines regarding abortion and maybe other things as well number three I think we may see the effort to force employers to cover abortion and birth control in their health insurance and that's back to the some of the high profile court cases that have come out I think you can see that moving forward I think you could see number for repeal religious exemptions for contractors to do do business with the federal government that means that if you're going to do work for the cap federal government you have to violate your religious beliefs by agreeing to employ certain kinds of people and so forth number five at the repeal federal guidelines the grant more religious freedom to recipients of federal grants some people think that that could even go as far as visually as Pell grants and colleges and with that comes into play as if you have a Christian college. And they say you know we take Pell grants here and the federal government says well then you're not eligible to have students come to your college life Ouachita Harding and use a Pell grant I think we look at number six push for the separation of church and state we have Bible bibles in schools as a course and we have publicly funded vouchers and scholarships for students to attend religious schools and we have faith based partnerships with with the the government on doing social services I think you can see that of operate I number seven that's the last one already but there are others receipt and president trump's Order regarding title nine we all remember when president Obama pushed really hard to have the boys girls dressed in the same dressing rooms at school there is no reason that the the by demonstration can't just turn that around inst start pushing for that once again. And so it's not if there's going to be an attack on religious freedom it's already happening. And it's going to get worse I believe before it gets better. And the only way that gets better. Is if people who are well intended like all of us in this room established policies that say we will not give up our. Freedom of religion our and our other god given rights and we will do all that we can do. When those attacks come our Attorney General we'll have a toolbox in in that toolbox will be the good law that Senator Hester and others worked on. In that toolbox hopefully will be this amendment to the Arkansas constitution that they can reach in there and pull that out and use that to fight back Mr **** the meaner of just briefly we have a limited amount of time left okay room and I don't know if Senator Clark from committee members nights when make sure enough time okay and I'm pretty much finished hi Mister chair and I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today and talk about this I just think it's one that the people of Arkansas would certainly get behind if you ask the people of Arkansas do they want to protect their religious freedoms as much as possible I believe they would say absolutely we do and I believe they would supported whole heartedly and this is one I think that needs to be done not just to make people feel better but because I think we need that tool in the toolbox to push back when the time comes Mister chair I appreciate the opportunity to visit with the committee about this important issue and I hope you will refer it out this with the one of the amendment thank you any questions committee. C. nine thank you Mr **** thank you Senator Rapert any final thoughts. I think the committee has a good handle on that on this issue and again of all of the amendments are out there I think we should be lend our air to the public and hear what they're saying that they want to address and definitely right now across the country the defense of our religious freedom and defense for second amendment rights or very front and center to many people across the country especially in the State of Arkansas so as the committee considers which amendments that we think might be good for the people of Arkansas vote on in the next election I appreciate consideration for both of these items and also would readily work with Senator Ballinger and R. BLR attorneys to ensure that we're addressing it in a way that won't cause any potential problems thank you Sir thank you with that I'll turn chair back over to you Sir. Stephanie heard anything from senator Clark I am. I had texted him very early on he responded. At first but I'm not heard anything from incensed. You want available right now let me see if I get a response from an. Committee would just suspend here momentarily waiting for feedback. At least percent right now. Up. Members we staff is confirm Senator Clark is actually presenting bill another committee and so is there any other questions or concerns you come before the committee at this time uh saying none as a state I will talk Senator Clark this is been this was scheduled to be the last time and so I'll talk with them to see whether or not he even wants to bring these for and we'll put him on the end of an agenda we have this afternoon we got a full agenda because of the of last week so be prepared to work hard this afternoon hopefully we can clear the decks pretty quickly and I appreciate your help I would Mintzer Tucker you've got a question. Thank you Mr could we S. staff or someone just put a list together of the Joint resolutions that we've heard just so we have a single list of everything that will be sort of choosing from for lack of a better term will it if the all those are and been listed after on the agenda yes Sir number one and so we could do a list of the ones that we have heard but I will just tell you we have begged and pleaded with people we have went above and beyond with emails trying to make sure they get into made several announcements so but staff can certainly help you Senator Tucker with that but I'll just tell you what we would like for us the committee to do and I'm just a listener Kerr not gonna be able to come and so I'll talk with them and see if we can make sure he gets proper hearing. But. The process for us the house is already Mason made some decisions down there I believe what they're going to do I don't know if they're taking formal action they haven't taken it but there's kind of some consensus about whether at and so what I would like to do is for all of you to be considering what of these amendments that you really believe we should move forward with it you have a strong conviction on and then we will take time and one of our upcoming meetings to actually have a vote on those I think it would be prudent if we come up with one or two or how many ever we have to that we can actually get out that doesn't mean that the committee only puts two on the floor we can put three on the floor form we put five on the floor but the way the process works is once we do that vote out of the committee under the Senate rules I'm obligated to meet I believe it is with the Majority Leader and the minority leader to decide which one of those that we vote on first on the floor. Once we vote on that that's it. We vote on that and then we're up to the house where they take the same action if they didn't support it. Then we meet again under the rules and decide which one of the remaining four if we had done five which one then comes up for that next vote is so there is a bit of a process there I think that this committee would do the body will by trying to come to a consensus on what we really think cast support so that we only put forward what we wish and for the sake of saying it I've had certain senators the Division with me there may be consensus that they want to do nothing at all. And if that's the consensus of the body nothing no one says we have to refer an amendment if that's where we end up being then then that's perfectly acceptable to the body what I would say is that with the issues on the table we should listen to the people of Arkansas in here from them what's of concern to them in if there's a way to address it I would like to make sure we address something that has popular support so that being the case that's where we're at so we'll get you list okay and I hope within the next week or so that we can really decide here were point what we need to make a decision on Maskell more questions Sir so I've I've heard you say today and other times that the Senate will get to amendments this session I thought I also heard at some point it would be one from each chamber than a potential third one would come out of a super majority from each chamber that I just that I'm not right it's in the rules but what you also have is the traditional approach that. One chamber has one one session and to vice versa and I'm told BLR and even talking with German Tosh that this is this this is the Senate year if we choose to go that route that still means you got to get a vote down the other end so it's always been it okay a new agreement between the bodies okay thank you Mr thank you with that we're Jr under this afternoon.