State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Thousands of other committees and so what I'd like to do I believe Senator Garner is why don't I let you take the chair and let me run senate bill four ninety six to ninety two and that way we can handle those and then hopefully we'll get some more members here for that. Okay I'll take that will take that let me get these out of the way and I'll get back in the chair senator and then we'll take these and then looks like we'll get to this to the Constitutional amendments senator garner I'm going to. It you take your hair short. Right The Amendment to yes. Which two are you doing that. It's going order left to a four six ninety six first with the member. Senator Rapert you're recognized to present your you must over the amendment first yes your senate bill four ninety six does have an amendment and. the Amendment. Does take care of what I've been told is any concerns anyone had and I. Rash that Daniel Schultz with Election Commission be able to be with me to present. What's the adopt the amendment before moving on to prison do I have a motion for committee on this amendment I have a motion and motion Raper of second Senator Davis also say aye opposed center your members and doctors at the bill as amended all right thank you very much of members I'm going to hit the high spots I think that actually you've got a memo that danger sheltered provided as well obviously we've been trying to have some reforming special elections now for several years frankly and we seem to have hit on a situation here where there is consensus I'm not anyone contact me say they're in opposition what the bill is going to do just to hit the highlights again for you as provided for special election dates per year once a quarter during the years of the presidential primary that would be in March may August and November and the other following years of the three following year **** would be February may August and November this is your special elections cannot be held with primary or general run off elections which administers legal problem obviously under the law makes procedures for calling a special election uniformed. Seventy day notice requirement to call election include schools and statute governing the calling of special elections aligned school elections in odd years with special with special elections current law what school elections one week before or after the excuse me set school elections one week before after the special election date some of the high points to continue Senate bill four ninety six provides county election officials as well as voters with greater predictability regarding when elections will be held in this is considered an agency bill that's reviewed and approved by the governor's office and has the support of the association of Arkansas counties the bill would allow counties to complete one special election at a time election requires at least two months to prepare is back to prepare ballots as choose me to prepare as balance must be completed in the field no less than forty six days prior to the election. Current law allows special elections to be called in consecutive months in twenty fourteen it's reported to us at one county had an election every single month of the year that had to just drive participation through the floor and so I think that this consensus on having for four different times during the year is that much improvement to that I can go on through that you've got the memorandum the bottom line for me is that we saw consensus on that list facial election reform now for many many years and I'd like to do for now Mister chair to Daniel Schultz for him to fill in any blanks and some important points that many to be stated thank you shows can you say your name and title for the record and you can present your testimony that our souls of director for the state board of election commissioners I think Senator Rapert summed it up as well as I could I do think This is a a reform which would help everyone of the voters in the election it would really improve the administration's that elections for the voters in the county and I'm available to any questions you may have. Of course committee Senator Tucker you're recognized. Thank you. Senator Rapert thank you to use this one three years on the floor last week you're talking faster than I was listening so can you just want to both of you just spell out I guess the two parts I have or yes when during the quarter they would be understand if there is a primary or general election would be on the same date when on the other quarters and I noticed there some language in here about an emergency special election I was curious about how that would work also sure so the general rule is the second week of the quarter so that's February March sees me. From the rock act that is February may August and November second month of the quarter than this. The second month of the quarter to be the second Tuesday of the month okay the only exception to that is when the presidential primary is moved up from may to March that February date slides back to March so there's one but that's only once every four years okay. So would be consistent with the general election voting day November also right so if you're having a special election with the primary or general that will doesn't the on this the specialty on the primary and the general the other important part of this is that right now current law requires you hold a special election with a run off for the primary but that's not really practical it quite frankly creates a problem because you won't know that you're having a run off when you start overseas and military voting for the special and if those have to be on the same ballot we've already but that ballot that you've got to have both things on the field before the second election is even known to exist so we want to prohibit that practice okay and then what about the emergency special of the emergency vessel language will. Allow an entity which has the authority because special election to call special elections on another date if there's for one it has to be a two thirds vote of the governing entity that finds there is a. at the end which causes a substantial change in circumstances and that change represents an undue burden to the governing entity that's opposite paraphrase but to. That the concept okay. Thank you any more questions committee. Senior do believe we have somebody speak for the bill John Wilkerson income for Daniel if you can just step aside so we can have a spot. Cancel your name and title for the record and you present your testimony a John Wilkerson general counsel some municipally I don't know I can add to much what Senator Rapert Mr Schultz and I'm I do want to say thank you Senator Rapert and Election Commission for hearing our concerns and we we listen to their concerns and we think that this is a fair compromise and a good solution to the issues and also gives us with emergency language some latitude that if something does happen that we do need is emergency special election a certain time we can we can we can handle it if we have to but we do appreciate their their their work with us and we their municipally is going to support this version of the bill so that was at thank you Sir any questions seeing none Senator Rapert are you closing your bill I'll close the bill appreciate a good vote as you can tell typically we're we've had contention is just vanished and I think it's a good compromise appreciate everybody's support. Good with him in close we have a motion from the Committee motion motion to pass as amended by Senator Rapert we have a second by Senator Davis all in favor say aye opposed gradually center your bill passed will move on to Senate bill. Two ninety two Senate bill two ninety two whenever you're ready Senator Rapert. Yes Sir and Mr chairman up if there's someone with the county sheer appreciate them more quick more one of his folks are here she were more income for please. Ready when you are Senator yes Sir who is Scott Bradlee's. We have some I signed up on your Scott Bradley okay use there if you needed okay so make sure what certain if you're ready alright thank you very much. Members this is actually one of the back to blue carcass of pieces that came before you what couple weeks ago now when was announced this is the public safety grade Quitman grant program set up a grant funded the department of public safety for non lethal equipment it's a result of the work the law enforcement task force set up by governor Hutchinson during last year the goal task force was to improve transparency between law enforcement and the communities that they serve in a manner to help save lives towards that end the task force identified critical need in our law enforcement community for grant funds to help secure nonlethal equipment such as state of the art body cameras storage for the video footage from the body cameras tasers rubber bullets bullet proof vest virtual reality training and other forms of non lethal equipment as deemed necessary by the secretary of the department of public safety this fund does not receive currently any current funding sources that you understand this just setting up the structure the hope is that some of the money from in either the federal stimulus for potential future state surplus monies or even private sector money could be put into the fund to help fund all this once money is put into the fund depending on the amount the grants could even be made matching grants to stretch the calendar system or what we did with voting machines and the secretary of state's office a few years ago the rules of the fund will be created by the secretary of the department public safety and approved by the legislature this bill does have widespread support obviously from the stakeholders that were part of the back the blue it we get so many now almost afraid to try to name them so I don't forget them but obviously the socialization Arkansas counties the Municipal League it's been there the state police association has been there as well as many other stakeholders in the different departments ensure Bradley is here if you'd like to hear his comments but I did I do know that Mr Whitmore an arc so she's of Arkansas county. Has been real champions for this and would be happy to take questions either myself or for any other fee as a comment. for move on to test I do have a question so I'm assuming that the rules don't promulgate will set up structure for held this will be dispense as my only concern is I think it's a great program assuming we get you know ten million thirty million fifty million are much I'd like to know that is a fair system in place to make sure rule certain areas get the same amount and it's not just given to certain can you all either test found that are discussed that question well as I stated the secretary of the department and if you've got a particular area in the bill that you're looking at no Sir it's just more about how that how do you how do they have the discussions come up to how that will be addressed to the rules it in a key phrase there is and approved by the legislature is you know all the rulemaking now that occurs typically counts for review and so the idea is to get the fund set up and you know oddly enough with all that we've seen happen in the past few weeks I don't think that we're gonna have a problem in trying to find funding for each and so this is important to make sure that these departments absolutely have every resource at their Beck and call I do wanna make mention it maybe it would be good for sheriff Bradley also mention they did a survey of the needs out there and I miss what more can speak to that or if sure Ratledge would like to what more please say your name and title for your record and anything you need to add to conduct mark Whitmore chief counsel association Arkansas counties of during what I call the snow apocalypse we did a survey of the sheriff's responded vigorously and the need is pretty substantial when you purchase body cameras they'd like any other electronics have limited life and you have to repurchase new one to replace a lot of sheriffs don't having of currently and almost none of our jails currently have body cameras and so that type of non that type of equipment is very much needed during the survey we discover there's a pretty pressing need for. Of the professed we have officers would have to buy their own bulletproof fast. So this is a much needed bill of like Senator record that we do think the money will flow and fall forward there's all kinds of equipment there are serving with discovered drones other protective measures of that are used to help of connect with the public and so we could at some point in time provide that survey but all of our shares have the need for that this equipment or replacement equipment and on the body cameras we found out and I did notice to the surviving the storage is actually more expensive than the body cameras so when you pay two thousand dollars or so a body camera there's two thousand deputies sheriff deputies on one thousand reserve deputies course Rev Hendren jailers the storage expenses actually starts to exceed the body cameras themselves so this is a much needed capacity that at our ability to get these items that needed first public safety good I thank her for my police departments and being a leader is in my district is that the body cans were met with some apprehension of first and officers quickly realized that it protects them just as much as the general public I think is a good public safety thank I want to ensure that as the rules promulgated is done fairly and there's been discussions that any other questions committee. Seeing none Sir you come testify if you feel like is prudent I was I think you're good. Okay your support would you will note that for the records in rape or you closed I'll close the bill I would would at at do you have one mention on here for you on page two talks about sector awarding the grant so I want to make sure you heard this Mr chairman they were dressed in the program law enforcement agencies detention centers corrections agencies for quicker than agent perfect trust relation between law enforcement agencies it says detention centers again and corrections agencies that they serve she was very broad based and I'm close the bill Sir thank you he is close we have a motion. Motion to pass by Senator Davis we have a second by Senator All the favor say aye. Posed gradually center your bill is passed thank you thank you thank you all. All right members Senator English if you're ready why don't we take up Senate bill thirty ma'am. Thank you members Senator Jane English district thirty four basically this is a a bill that when the Division of information systems doesn't have enough of information technology to support state agencies the director is able is authorized to enter to professional services contracts and to those contracts we have to have approval for moving money around often that Legislative Council. Members you have any questions for Senator English. I don't see any questions and I don't have any indication anybody here speak on the bill is there anything further you like to add shall. Reshape that sing NO one here to speak for against the bill I have a motion motion do pass for Senator Davis second from senator garner all those in favor say aye aye All opposed no Senate bill thirty passes thank you Senator English. And. Representative makes. I believe you're here for house bill fifteen sixty eight. If you state your name for the record and and you be recognized for the bill Sir all right thank you Mr chairman representative says Steve makes House Bill fifteen sixty eight to cook colleagues is pretty basic I actually read a study today that the majority of our Kansas one of their top priorities for this legislative session is a election integrity and so what this bill does is it requires the state agency committees in cooperation with city county locals to investigate how we can use technology to better secure and create integrity in our elections of the committee's interested I'll be able to be happy to share a few of the ideas that I had I did take those ideas to the secretary of state's office and there were just too much there to try to hash out during session so that was the genesis of this is for us to study simply how we can use technology to better secure our elections and create better integrity and transparency for our for our citizens and with that I'll be open any questions okay. Well I thank you for bringing the bill and and definitely see if there's a need I think with all of the issues that are going on and I I would ask their I think it just so that the committee is aware on page two of the bill and you please guide me at your bill representative makes but things line twenty three I just wanna make sure that the committee knows that it would this would require a report on behalf of the committee on our work and so states on or before November thirtieth of twenty two that the house committee in the state agency's committee in the Senate shall submit to the Legislative Council final report of activities findings recommendations with regard to the steady and it goes on to list those out so it did it would require some some work on the Committee outside of a regular session and I think frankly with all that we've had it is probably well needed yeah well and and what I was thinking about you know obviously we could have done this without actually passing the bill but I wanted to the bill so that we're stating to the citizens of our state that we're gonna take this serious and that we're going to commit to doing this within the next you know during the interim J.. Senator do you have any questions for representative makes on the bill. I said don't see any questions close for the bill per share to give out his or anyone that's registered speak for against the bill saying none to have a motion motion to pastor Senator English as second from senator Clark on those of favour say aye. The Bill pass is thank you representative makes I'm not gonna talk about it do you want me to take this up and running on the floor for you okay it in that will make committee make sure were remember to tell them so they're not looking for a sponsor up there. The representative makes. All right I believe that Senator Ballinger we're still waiting his arrival he was going to do house bill sixteen fifty four so let's go ahead and take up representative rate house bill fifteen twenty two Mister chairman okay I've got Curnow men from the secretary of state's office could join me you better if you would just for those watching simply state your name for the record. Thank you to represent a rare don't think you got to say your own name show fuel state your name for those observing Force happy to David Ray a state representative district forty thank you Sir current now man with the secretary of state's office thank you you're recognized for thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee this is a House bill fifteen twenty two this bill was brought to me by the secretary of state and it would amend the Arkansas code section seven dash one dash one oh three which contains a number of miscellaneous misdemeanors that pertain to election law this bill would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly provide false information with reference to your qualifications to be placed on the ballot one of the candidate files for office it's incumbent upon that person to know the eligibility requirements for the office that they seek and that's why the secretary of state's office requires all of us to sign this affidavit of eligibility when we file and it just states I am aware of the requirements for holding the office I further attests that I'm eligible to hold the following office if elected to this office by my signature below I swear or affirm that the above statements are true complete. So you just attesting that you understand those eligibility requirements whether their age residency citizenship etcetera it's not often that we run into an issue with this but in the last election there were a couple of instances where folks filed to run for state office and they didn't actually meet those qualifications and what the secretary of state's office learned in the process of that was there's really no enforcement mechanism there's no teeth behind this affidavit and so this would this would be a simple measure to create a deterrent for people filing for an office they're not eligible to hold and to ensure that there's some measure of accountability for candidates who might mislead election officials and with that I'd be happy to take any questions right members you have any questions for representative ray. I don't see any questions jury thing else further you'd like say representative very I just appreciate your time and attention to this bill and we appreciate a good vote all right cheers devise we don't have anyone signed up to speak for against the bill if no one has anything else I see a motion from Senator Clark do pass to have a second since entering the seconds all in favor say aye opposed no bill passes thank you representative ray. And members of. We're down to the point where we needed to representive or she mi Senator Ballinger for house bill sixteen fifty four so just to accommodate situation we were about to move to Constitutional amendments and so with no objection from any of you all I'd like to go ahead and I'll Senator Davis to make her presentation on her constitutional amendment in one Senator Ballinger comes with just have him knock out both the bill and his amendment. And This is a good advertisement for everybody if you know anyone that is wanting to come and run an amendment we really had hoped to stack these up I don't know if it's a factor some just aren't ready now but we really would like and I appreciate you members you're talking to to our colleagues to remind them that we need to get these heard so that we can move on expeditiously there is a process that we will take up that is actually in our Senate rules on whichever ones we choose I actually by rule will meet with the Majority Leader and the minority leader to establish which ones will be heard on the agenda and then once we put him on our agenda in the Senate then we vote. And if that one is voted out and sent to the house we vote on no more. If that was not taken up by the House there we will again set the agenda for which will be voted in on the floor and so given that we have some structure that I just want to have you all continue to be encouraging people to get get in touch with us because we really need to see if there's gonna be consensus so with that Senator Davis as you know we won't be taking a vote today and so what you're recognized for presentation of S. J. R. ten. Thank you Mr chairman was of the committee I'm gonna let representative Cavenaugh and talk through this constitutional amendment and then we'll be happy to take any questions. Give it your name force a representative Fran Cavenaugh district sixty. This constitutional amendments probably one the most simple ones are going to see it's not long constitutional amendment it's just simply a city in a way that the General Assembly can call themselves into special session currently the only way we can get in the special session as its executive branch call says this actually sets a way that through joint proclamation between the Senate and the house we can call ourselves in the special session it doesn't limit anything that we can here so we can hear whatever we feel we need to hear it also says that that we set the joint rules at each regular session on what the threshold will have to be to call ourselves in the session so we can be a can be changed by each General Assembly and that's really the gist of the they have a constitutional amendment I've had people ask me why would you run something like this and for me it's a way to try to equalize the power between the two branches between the legislative branch and the executive branch and that's really what we're trying to do this does not take away any of the governor's ability to call us in the special session this just gives us the same ability. Two. Members you have any questions on this amendment. Senator garner you're recognized thank you to have their support of this amendment this couple things obviously co sponsored but. The proclamation by the Speaker of the house and the pro tem. I'm assuming that the rules we serve would be a mechanism where we could make that happen it would just be solely on their discretion right because that be my only worry of say eighty percent memberships in both chambers wanted a special session yet save one of the two decided not to do that Mr mechanism we courageous. In this too. Allow us to have more power not just leaving in their proclamation well the way that I had envisioned this to our joint rules that that we would set the threshold that we would call like the House would call itself into a committee of the whole we would have a vote on whether or not we believe that we need to be called into special session in the Senate could do something very similar and that we would based upon the threshold that we send in those joint rules would be whether it's simple majority whether it's two thirds three quarters or whatever that the houses agree that they think that threshold should be then once the members meet that threshold and we have that both in the in the proclamation would be done so be assuming the role set up correctly issued the they won't have any discretion at that if the body sports and and issue okay good that's the way I envision it you secondarily you there is no not like the governor's but said special session we can discuss any bills the number of bills you want to with that be once you open the session up we can file we want to or that be said in the joint rules as well where you have to have a process to do that I prefer to have an open do you have an idea and my idea was that it would be open and we would not be limited to what we can hear perfectly thank you. Was it was there any particular reason that you left it open ended. On city owned when you said each session excuse me each assembly would set the rules so it just it made me wonder why we would just state that source or a method to that well for me I was thinking about one particular General Assembly would not find the other one and that's really all I was thinking about is that the one General Assembly could not find what the other ones would do in the future and so I said it's a joint rules the other thing is it simpler to change if we need to change it through joint rules rather than having to go through a constitutional amendment if we if we see later on that is something that we need to change. Thank you. Well it it it I just I just made me wonder about that because. You know. We will often I see the same situation that we all entered which we she definitely necessitates there be in some parity and and the ability for the legislature to speak and I just wondered if I'm just thinking there on that course for non voting on it today but I'd like to think about a little bit more because I wouldn't want us to put it just put us in a situation. Where. promises are made between some leadership about things they want and suddenly the the body finds them self on the outside looking in to a Speaker in a pro tem Senate governor that they want to change all. Isn't that just I'm just and I'm open to looking at there's amendments we feel we need to put if we need to feel that we need to put it in this one I'm open to that I'm for me the key thing is for us to be able to call ourselves in sure that way we've got the parity that we need with the executive branch and I haven't looked on my list is this also if you filed an identical bill of the same thing in the house too okay so um this obviously members we've had this discussion but we're going to have one of the House one of the Senate and then according to the bureau in those that have been around for many many years it's up to us to possibly propose a second in that second one according to what I understand has to have identical on both ends in B. two thirds and so so bottom line I Arkansas the one you've got this down here is it gives us both a chance at it so I thank you for bringing the bill and members any other questions on the way this would work or any of the issues involved. I'm not saying any do we have anyone that's signed up we don't have anyone that signed up with the either of you like to say anything in closing on the bill. And I think just the last year's relation us why the seven necessary and why so many people of signed on and just to be able to give ourselves an option to be what we are supposed to be which is four branch of government and so I just checked your consideration thank you. Thank you thank you representative Cavenaugh. Senator Ballinger you've been working hard you're back in everyone is heard to say we're not voting on any of these today we did save not only your your constitution limit but we're we're prepared for you to go ahead and handle the bill first because there's gonna be a lot of commentary on the constitutional amendment so were you at okay session that you can handle the bill for sure one of the bill this is house bill sixteen fifty four four representative Dotson. Sure so house bill and. Sixteen fifty four is that what it is House Bill sixteen fifty four thank. This deals with the national motto and what it does is it just opens it up to any publicly funded building the if you look at the. On the Page two line eleven it goes from state funds to taxpayer funds. I'm happy to answer any any questions about as simple the Bill Gates. Senator Ballinger now that I see. The text of this one deals with committee I want to make chair's gonna make a disclosure if you don't already know because again I did not know the gist of all this bill but I'm the president of the American history and heritage foundation which as you all know that the ten commandments monument but we also had people reach out to us we've helped with over twenty thousand of these national motto is that been requested all around the state and so I wanna make that disclosure so that there's no misunderstanding whatsoever on that this could could mean you have to spend more money. Could be. Any questions on the bill Senator Clarke Tucker. Thank you Mr. So I'm just. Not fully. Understanding. The process of how it works I understand under subsection be. The posters or the funds have to be donated through voluntary contributions right. If that happens. Then under subsection a. As a superintendent or building administrator required to do Tiptoft hosted even if. So if a contribution comes in voluntarily on the donor side but involuntarily on the recipient side is the recipient still bound by this law posted you understand it better than you thought that's exactly right so we're requiring that if as long as it's it's funded doesn't cost the entity entity anything they have to post national motto. Okay thank you. All right members any other questions here for Senator Ballinger on this bill. Seeing us or anyone record I have no one for court to speak for against the bill are you close bill Sir I'm close and I appreciate a good vote move do pass all right I have a motion I have a motion from Senator Ballinger second from Senator English all those favor say aye opposed no bill passes Sir thank you thank you. Are you all compared for S. J. R. nine we are Sir and you are the last of the bill on the docket here today. You're recognized for presentation we do have several people that are signed up obviously to speak on this I remind everyone that we're not going to be voting on the bill today and after Senator Ballinger does make his presentation appreciated if of those that are going to be speaking not plow the same ground register your what you will say on the bill because if this bill actually ends up becoming one of those that are highlighted that we want to take up we'll have an opportunity obviously at that time for for you to speak again if need be on that show up Senator Ballinger recognized thank you very much so this this bills far as the the structure may look familiar couple years ago on S. J. R. what was that year eight at the time it had language that dealt with rulemaking authority this language is basically just the same as that so everything else in this J. R. eight is gone the only thing that you have left is is the rulemaking authority a lot of people will attribute this to being about tort reform which which I get it is to some extent about for reform but is not just about four form factor my attraction to STR eight was this right here it was giving the legislature the ability to be policy makers so an example this we had a conversation with DHS couple of of of consumers from where there had a conversation with the chest they were talking about the state mental hospital and how it's clogged up with people who are waiting to be declared whether the competent to actually be be charged and tried or not so you what we talked about was trying to set up a mechanism in order to try to alleviate that will immediately my thinking is this would probably violate Amendment eighty had a conversation with a constituent about changing some some legislation to deal with the abuse of the process when it comes to to child custody. And immediately builder after said that would be a violation of Amendment eighty we we know a couple years ago the judge Griffin in Little Rock through office the ability for a victim of of rape a child to have a comfort dog in the court room and a based on Amendment eighty. You know I mean I I actually believe strongly that the court should have the ability to set rules and to to manage itself however I also feel even probably more passionately the legislature should have ability to legislate policy now they don't see a lot of those things this policy they think it see it as rulemaking that it violates you know rules of practice and procedure and you know of course from my standpoint I I would disagree what this would do this would require a three fifths vote for us to be able to pass rules that within override the the Senate and I would be the first person to stand up the complaint of what we're talking about is margins we're font size or anything like that that to me is definitely not what is contemplated in this legislation but whether or not we have comfort dogs in court houses that are to be decision that where prosecutors come constituents come ask for that opportunity representative of looks at it gets passionate about it works all such along to make aware works runs the bill gets overwhelming support in the legislature signed by the governor's law right well until one judge decides it violates amenity so from my standpoint it's is this import legislation just so that we can do our job in representing our constituents I'm happy to answer any questions. Right. Members there any questions for Senator Ballinger. Senator garner you're recognized thank you this might be a sophistication but before Amendment eighty we essentially had this kind of power what we could do that I know for the majority of Arkansas history and from my understanding of it this never was problem where you have this huge stepping on the constitutional issues with different branches can you expand on that in sure that is that there's a concept called judicial power right that was implicit in the Arkansas constitution for years the judiciary will that the judicial power however any time that we had a piece of legislation that we passed that would would deal with what you know something like this that could consider what rulemaking the the judiciary didn't didn't move on however I imagine if we started meddling and font sizes they would claim to violated the principle judicial buyer but yes for for decades it It operated where the legislature kept its hands off from the judicial business Judiciary kept attains off from legislative business and worked in and I would say that even the people who framed Amendment eighty probably believe that same thing because they pass a member named in two thousand you know back then you have That time senator Bibi who is here very influential in the process in a few years later the legislature then passes a lot of what would be considered judicial reform stuff or tort reform staff that they thought would probably comply and yet it was over the years declared as unconstitutional so I don't think that they understood this amendment eighty to be nearly as broad as the court has interpreted it which is okay there's a set up of checks and balances we have the opportunity to to do this as long as the court doesn't turn off the ballot but that's one reason why this is narrow down just to this one issue is you know it makes it difficult more difficult for them claim log rolling. Can. Senator Bledsoe. Thank you thank you Mr chair would you mind giving me a recent example of. Why this is important in the. You know really recently what you would fix with this well I I mean honestly I think the most recent examples are the those two that happened this session what we're looking at saying okay how are we going to address the fact the state mental hospitals overrun with individuals who are not there for treatment but there there to be declared whether the competent or not right so that is directed issue that we're you know we're trying to figure out how to do that but yet the most of the solutions would run into the potential conflict with the marinating or the constituent who's got an issue where where they'd like to see addressed where people are abusing the process when it comes child custody and and and you know that is something that currently we're trying to work on trying to figure out how we can draft a bill that would still comply with the and would violate Amendment eighty and and then I didn't I mean it's only been a year and a half ago when judge Griffin throw through the ability for a person to have a comfort dog out of the maybe it's two years committee went through that out and and I was Rebekah Petty representative pending work real heart of the legislation we all supported it was overwhelmingly supported no real opposition to it but then one judge decides they feel like it violates constitution and so what in the federal system married have basically this kind of ballots right Congress can pass laws they could even pass laws dealing with with rules of practice and procedure but they don't they let the federal judiciary manage those things and but then also the judiciary doesn't throw things out as unconstitutional because the fact that the the Congress's passing laws that let me and one way or fashion affect what happens in a court room which by the way most of what we do thanks in some way what happens the court room all right thank you so much. Thank you members any other questions for Senator Ballinger. Seeing none Senator Ballinger anything further before we hear testimony no I would just say is kind of part of a it is I have a the Bill running in another committee that that I was when I ran over here too and it's not not there and so they need me so if I get up and run out of some because I'm offended by anybody I try to stay here as long as I can all right ma'am Maxie's Long Way way center we appreciate we know it's been difficult today with all the needs that you've got a well that's what they're all about thank you at this time actually C. five different people that are signed up to speak on against the bill I don't have any signed up to speak for the bill in the first one listen I'm going to go ahead name everyone in that way if there is an issue you can come over and see staffing corrected but I have Paul Byrd Paul Keith Brian Brooks Jerry **** Josh Silverstein in the first we'll call Mr Paul board. If. Most of you have done this many times before but if you would please just state your name for the record and. At yes Sir please. You're recognized all or. Right. Years ago. I. You're my cone Paul. Is that right many years ago I defended a man who and and I want to state your name for the record so that people don't have her address Paul Byrd I'm returning here in Little Rock Arkansas practicing for over thirty two years thank you hi represent a man many years ago who had committed to civil disobedience Act of blocking abortion clinic doors. And he wanted his day in court. So we went and we had a jury trial we tried as cage Hey want to know what the rules were I was able to tell him. Here's the rules here's what's going to happen. We went in there we selected the jury board Dyer. And as you can imagine it was a very controversial subject. And a lot of comments from the jury but we ultimately picked a fair jury. Try the case there were certain things that we objected on evidence come in whatever the judge ruled on it my point was at the end of the day Hey he got convicted I would much of a defense. He was very highly educated man and I turned to him and I said well. Sorry we couldn't win what do you think. He said I believe this is the greatest country in the world and that was the most fair system I ever went through I got my day in court. If we get to the point where rules are being made fast and change every two years. Are we call a special session in the change even before that. I lose that ability and that steady stable source of being able to tell him here's what's coming here's what's going to happen. I've been involved in rulemaking on the federal level. And it is a very slow deliberate process it takes. A long time to change the rule. So what I'm concerned about is not if you take the rulemaking authority or the Supreme Court takes rule making authority I am concerned about coming out here in passing bills on evidence rules and legislative rules it takes me years to get to court. And if the rules are changing every year I'm waiting when a trial date gets at and I'm trying to get ready I can't tell my client what's happening. In two thousand one and two thousand three the nursing home industry was out here trying to get a rule of evidence past that nobody could put into evidence they're past surveys of their behavior. Well we have a rule for six real evidence that says If my if somebody ran a stop sign yesterday the judging on let me talk about it in front of the jury. To prove they ran the stop sign in my case not fair. Just because you ran a stop sign before didn't mean you ran this way. But the rule also says that if I can show. If that person gets up every morning Gish's Cup of coffee get into his car and runs at stop sign every morning then it becomes a pattern of practice and have it then it can come in the judge has to rule on that. What the nursing home industry wanted back in O. one and O. three boys just take away that rule of evidence to where the judge couldn't look at what was similar. A good friend in my hometown. Hired me when I was a young lawyer named Bessie rich. Yes he was in a nursing home. And they left her for two hours they pushed her metal bed up against a heater and it heated up and she had third degree burns it was a sad case yes he told me I just kept calling and calling the never came. Well I went out and I went to the office long term care and I looked at their records and I have seen where they had left the lady. Before an another person they didn't get to in time another person what I found out was they were short staffed and couldn't get around everybody there's no way that bed heated up within the twenty minutes they were supposed to be coming back and checking on Bessie. So I got curious and I looked up the the nursing homes that this company owned and my gosh they were having these problems everywhere. I don't think these companies even operating in this state anymore because litigation finally got him out they were a bad actor. So what I'm saying is. If we're going to have a special interest come out here and try to change a rule to keep evidence like that out then I don't like it. On the other hand if we're going to have a deliberate fair everybody gets to come the nursing homes including comment on the rules. And so be it. but I just don't think it ought be that jacked up and that fast Senator K. I've represented Gazaway has a bill that would make it like the federal system which is slow and deliberate if that's what we're going to do I feel like of taking up to much time already I thank you for your. Your ability let me speak you bet as we take a question Russian Senator Ballinger. Thank you so the The case with with Bessie when you represent her what was that about a year. All M. C. hours practice in them in the nineties okay so is before two thousand and in Amendment eighty that's right under the previous system. Okay so. Would you say that that system for you two thousand was was a fair system. It has the same rules we have now okay rules have not changed that's how slow and deliberate they are and I I would like to set before two thousand though the legislature could pass book means let's say things like the court house dogs would you say before two thousand Amendment eighty the legislature could could have done something like record requiring a a court to allow comfort dot for for child in right yeah you know how will go out to every committee at Supreme Court that I can go to a really the Supreme Court doesn't make the rules they let these committees they have make the rules that's the same way really the legislature did in the past so what I will do is I will go with you your lawyer I'm a lawyer will go to those committees and we'll talk about this comfort rule how silly it was sure and obviously the court could have done that but that hasn't but that's not really what I'm talking about prior to two thousand could the legislature you know through the legislative process in income consulting with the with the prosecutors and all the interested parties to the judges and and could they have passed the a bill that provided for comfort dogs prior to I believe they have if they did not conflict with the current rules that spring court had okay and that's going to be the test and that's what Amendment eighty was trying to stop who was having conflicting rules because the public needs stability and they need to know where it comes from I don't know disagree and I will go with you you and I are lawyers let's go out and get this comfort bill rule taking care of Anil and let's go through the process I have lawyers here that'll volunteer to go with me to deal with the mental health issues at the mental hospital let's go yeah I think that's what I think that's a great idea how are these issues been sitting there and they haven't been addressed we were getting constituencies asking us to address those things but yeah we can become your own. Lawyer you can go down and go to the committees and say we need a new rule on it let's go do that I'll do it with you we're friends. We were we agree on a lot of things is not on this one. Thanks thank you Mr bird next personal list is all Keith. If you state your name for the record and who you represent and you be recognized Sir thank you my name is Paul keys on the president of the Arkansas Bar Association. Mr chairman vice chairman Garner members of the committee thank you so much for allowing me to come to you and to discuss this very important issue as I mentioned earlier I am the president the Arkansas Bar Association we have a organization of about five thousand lawyers across the state. Our members sue people and defend people are members of our prosecutors are members are defense attorneys are members represent. Bleak entities so I tell you that so that you will appreciate the diversity of viewpoint that I bring to the table here today and again I thank you for your time. I'm here because the Arkansas Bar Association is very serious about constitutional amendments fact were so serious that we don't even take a position on one without a three fourths vote and I can tell you that the. Senate joint resolution nine didn't even come close we oppose Senate joint resolution nine because it will best rulemaking authority. with the General Assembly we believe that the creation of rules of practice and procedure should remain with the Supreme Court where it currently rest under Amendment eighty section three of our constitution. The current. Procedure for adoption and ratification and modification of court rules takes full advantage of the accumulated expertise of the lawyers and judges who sit on the rules committees that are appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. They understand and appreciate these rules because they work under them every day just as. Senator Rapert you understand the rules of this body and and inform this committee of those rules earlier today. And they are trained these lawyers and judges in the origins and the reasons for these rules and. Because they represent both the plaintiffs and the defendants and the judges they make up the three legged stool that we call our justice system. And we have relied on it for many many years. And because they represent all sides. It's less likely that the rules will be skewed in favor of one side or the other. We have a legislation committee and our Bar Association and by last count I think we looked at around fourteen hundred Bills I don't have to tell you a lot of business comes through this General Assembly. And. The sheer volume of what you deal with in your biennial reviews and your final sessions will preclude the degree of detail and the date degree of study thank O. center rules of judicial and and procedure. Further the brevity of your sessions I've been here for a minute or two and I'm about to get up and leave the brevity of your sessions precludes the extensive public comment that the rules currently receives. Finally there and there's another caution that I want us all to remember here today and that is for over two hundred and thirty years we have benefited from a doctor in in this country call the separation of powers and it was created by people like then Franklin John Adams and James Madison. And it's not been perfect. But I believe it's better than anything else that I see. And four hundred eighty five years since the day that day be Crockett was down the street here at some hotel play and whatever he was playing in Arkansas we've lived under a doctrine of separation of powers three separate and equal branches of government. This Senate joint resolution nine is a departure from that doctor. Quite frankly we believe that we're treading on hallowed ground. We would ask that you go very slow about giving one branch of government. Supervisory authority over another. This is the second time that I had an opportunity to come and testify on this subject I was down the hall in the in the house about a week ago. And so I can tell you one thing that I have observed from this experience. No one. Has come before any of these bodies and explained just how. Besting rule making authority with the General Assembly will help the people that I represent and the people that you represent Artabanus phrase from Jimmy Stewart and my favorite movie the people that do most of the living and dining I'm here no one has told us how this concept will benefit them. Thank you for your very careful attention and I ask that you consider seriously not advancing this resolution from the Committee I'll be happy to take any questions you may have right members do you have any questions at all for Mr Keith. We appreciate you being here and obviously members have the benefit to go back and look at your testimony again if if we have to weigh this for consideration sure and Mr chairman and members of the committee I've got this you'll see me step out it's not because I want to but there's a judge in Southeast Arkansas who wants me on as an conference a few minutes ago so what we'll do that for just ensure that you don't present yourself as a cat like we saw in another proceeding absolutely out there saying this. Thank you I have to say that's when the motion immersed ones that I saw it thank you very much This must be Mr Brian Brooks yes Sir. You're recognized Sir if you would please state your name for the record and who you represent I'm Brian Brooks a lawyer from Greenbrier sit on the Supreme Court rules committee and have for years I've been on the ad hoc committee to to spring court appointed to an act procedures to effectuate ACT six forty nine and I'm also the lawyer for the Arkansas trial lawyers all right members we appreciate you being here and just so folks know Senator Ballinger mentioned he actually had stepped another committee so that's why he had to absent himself as well you're recognized Sir thank you and and to not plow the same ground again but to address some of the things that have come up in the testimony if I could I wish Senator Ballinger hadn't had to leave here because with respect to the service dog issue I just disagree with a judge's ruling I don't think that's an Amendment eighty issue and I think there's a remedy for it's an appeal of that particular ruling. That's number one number two with respect to the men of the the whole life of procedure before Amendment eighty I don't agree that things work just fine we had a mishmash of case law and it issues that arose before Amendment eighty was passed where we had conflicting rulings from the Supreme Court regarding whether legislative procedures would were valid or invalid decided under the separate separation of powers doctrine the general separation of powers doctrine and the judicial article state the Siple to and we'd work against Arnold or two cases that come to mind immediately in the cases where an internally consistent with one another we have one rule for a period of time then another and then it shifted back again in my understanding of Amendment eighty and I was practicing with Amendment eighty passed is it Amendment eighty was passed by the people to put this issue to bed that one of the reasons Amendment eighty section three is worded the way it is it's divest the sole rulemaking authority with the Supreme Court so I think that history lesson is a little bit of four I think it is also important to touch on the least to some extent that the notion that this is the federal system this is not perfect before I go there. Back to the we'd recognize Arnold state against side dishes. I predicted if this passes and the same sort of rulemaking authority is split again that we will have a mishmash of case law once again because this particular amendment. Reads the rules prescribed by the General Assembly under subdivision B. one of this section so super real seat any conflicting rules of pleading practice and procedure so we're going to have that whole battle all over again that Amendment eighty put that about whether rules conflicted with one another is going to expand cases it's going to increase the cost to get a case to the court and it's going to it's going to create confusion. The last thing I'll say is is the federal system and this is been touched on a little bit Mr Bert and Mr Keyes the federal system is not what this particular resolution advocates the federal system isn't very detailed system. Enacted under the jewel of the rules enabling act that investing US Supreme Court was rulemaking authority it is then delegated to the judicial council which delegates to committees and studies continuously the rules and makes them. Kannst it makes them constantly part of study and that date and and and process that's not what this particular build this resolution dies it's nothing like the federal system if we're going to look at to settle a federal system let's look at the whole world not a piece of the low. And I think the last thing I'll say is that a good set of rules are going to be like an architect's design. The carpenters and electricians and plumbers are going to know when they read does that design exactly where that light switch goes exactly where that pipe goes exactly where that now goes. The Courts need to be making the rules for how court proceeding. Progresses in court. Just like the courts have no business telling this body to make the rules that you were just discussing about how things operate here the Courts need to make their rules this body needs to make its rules and what the system we have right now is workable and there's a way there's no need to change the constitution to fix anything that isn't broken I'd be happy more than happy to answer any questions okay members any questions Senator Garner. Thank you chairman so you brought up the federal rules and I understand that there distinctly different in this constitutional amendment. Wasn't that put in place by legislation because the federal Congress has the power vested in the constitution to know where to put that in place it was actually a law that was passed they created the process for all those rules in place now As allowable in nineteen thirty four because the federal legislator had the power to put that in place in in any time assuming they wanted to they could change that the of the normal legislative process is that correct this is my understanding of the complicated history of of the federal rules enabling act that the federal federal system reached a a reasonable. Comfort level with the way things are done now that the battle over exactly how for Congress's rulemaking authority was never waged in was never decided instead a comfort level was reached with rules enabling act that placed the rulemaking authority in the Supreme Court with an up or down vote from Congress and into that system has survived because it's comfortable for both bodies and and I don't think that we. To my knowledge that we see sort of litigation over that separation of powers of issue that we have in Arkansas but yes it is a P. it is a piece of legislation that creates rules enabling provisions of the federal system but is it is a system that I think was a compromise system that was put in place and in both parties agreed. In theory tomorrow the US Congress could pass a law to completely redo that and change how that those pleadings are done is that correct I think that's I think in theory how far that goes on the under the federal separation of powers doctrine I think it's something that would be quite a battle thank you. Thank you members any other questions for Mister Brooks. Thanks thank you Sir appreciate your test if you don't mind I'm going to absent myself as well I'm gonna pants are playing baseball in Little now all right good luck. Jerry **** and then the last one we show is Josh or sting. Good afternoon if you would please state your name and who you represent for the record yes thank you Mister chair members of the committee. My name is Gerry **** I'm executive director of family council and we're based here in Little Rock and I'm here to speak in opposition to hi STA R. nine It let me say that. We all want to rules to be fair we all want to rules of evidence to be fair nobody in this room wants unfair rules. I've yet to hear a really compelling reason that the rules are unfair I have not heard a very compelling case made so to say somehow the current rules are unfair and that there's something wrong with those rules. So having said that I would ask. What what is it that's broken that needs to be fixed. But I can tell you. What I saw in this building in two thousand three. When the General Assembly passed general tort reform legislation. And then I saw the nursing home industry. Come in right behind that and say we want our own special. Tort reform just for nursing homes. And I saw there were the raw brute force of that industry and the pressure that they put on good people here in this building And that drama played out all the way into the very last night of the session. And they came within just a hair of getting their own special tort reform measure passed. Luthi about that measure. Our staff attorney who some of you know she's passed away in our name was Martha Adcock. Martha looked at me and she said. If this tort reform measure passes the way the nursing homes wanted. An inmate in the prison here in Arkansas would be more likely to win a lawsuit that a resident of a nursing home. That's how tight they were trying to ratchet down the rules. The rules of evidence and they were trying to say. Well you can't talk about past instances of abuse if your loved one got hurt or died or would be in in our nursing home and that it happened to other people you can't talk about that that can't be admitted as evidence so strike that they also said you can only interview certain staff members you can't interview everybody over here in the nursing home you've got a limit who you interview and by the way we want you to agree to binding arbitration and other things so that you don't ever even get to a point where there is a lawsuit. And I watched them try to dry up the ability of good people who have been hurt to be able to make a case. And that's what scares me about this proposal is that we're going right back to that and everybody in this room knows that the special interest will flood into this building. If not when you're here it'll be when somebody is sitting in your seat my seat all of our seats. Because what you're doing with this you're saying I trust the General Assembly for the next fifty years for the next hundred years to always make fair rules and not do them to favor big corporations or nursing home owners or other people out here who think you know if we can get the rules written in such a way that we won't get sued then. We can cut back on our staff we can cut back on the quality of care. And you know what we'll get sued a little bit. But nobody will be able to make much of a case and they won't be able to collect much in damages they might it may not even be able to get a lawyer because of the way the rules are written. And they'll be able to make more money. Any to who's going to suffer. It'll be little people who don't have a big loud voice maybe they don't have a lot of money maybe they don't have much influence they're the ones who are going to get the short end of the S. and there are people who think well I'm going to show the trial lawyers we're gonna pass this and I'm going to strike a blow against those trial lawyers that I don't care for. Do you know who that blow is going to land on Senator land on the trial lawyers know go do something else if you put them out of business but if you take away the right of a poor little person out here to a nursing home to get justice just because you're trying to get back in a trial lawyer then you've missed the whole point I thank. And forgive me for being so passionate about this but it's because like I care about those people and I know you do too and I know I'm speaking to good people around this table but we don't know who's going to sit around this table in five years or ten years we don't know what their attitude will be but once this is in place it will be a blank check for them to do as they please every single time the Committee. And so that's what concerns me a lot. And I appreciate you all listening to me and like I said I know everybody around this table I would trust you all with all kinds of things but I don't know who's gonna be here in another five or ten years. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee thank you Jerry Jerry questions for Mr ****. Thank you missing your questions thank you for presentation Sir I I appreciate in Mister chair if you could before I before we leave there was a letter that I wanted each member to have they found is that already out of should be thank you very much you only want to take a look at that thank you thank you Sir. believer now to Josh Silverstein. Okay Sir if you would please state your name and who you represent for the record and you're recognized. Good afternoon Sanders my name is Josh Silverstein I am a law professor and I live and work in Little Rock however I am speaking in my individual capacity I am not here speaking on behalf of the university where I cheat teach I want to thank you all today for listening to my testimony and taking the chairman's recommendation I fully endorse all of the prior comments made by the witnesses before me against Estrie our nine and I will try to cut my comments way down and not be duplicative of the points that they made. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Ballenger I know it's hard is in the right place and we've agreed on a number of important issues in the past even though he's a conservative and I'm a liberal but I strongly oppose as J. R. nine and other types of tort reform. As as been noted S. T. R. nine is a resurrection of the piece of issue one from two sessions ago which was more comprehensive tort reform. Proponents of tort reform whether it be in the form of damages caps were shifting control over rulemaking authority claim there's too much frivolous tort litigation in Arkansas which allegedly reduces the quality of health care and hinders job growth but is Jerry **** and I explained and are often the Democrat Gazette two years ago these are myths frivolous lawsuits are exceedingly rare because the legal system has numerous mechanisms that weed out meritless claims it is not possible for invalid cases to significantly impact the quality of care in our state or the economy tragically most people whose legal rights are violated never sue less than two percent of those injured in medical negligence according to one study sue because they can't find an attorney willing to take their case that means the vast majority of medical negligence victims go uncompensated and that goes a long way to explain why all proposals that fall under the broad heading of tort reform like STR nine would actually severely to form our legal system rather than Reform Act. As it's been noted S. T. R. nine would shift the rulemaking authority to from the courts to the state legislature I should say the final authority but that would critically undermine our system of justice and the separation of powers. Mr birds example about the nursing home industry two thousand and three would become a constant pattern in this body as Jerry **** just testified there will be a skyrocketing of lobbying by special interests to get rules to protect them past if STR nine is adopted and that helps to explain why Arkansas amended its constitution twenty years ago to adopt Amendment eighty to assure as much deep politicization of the judicial system as possible by giving control over the courts to the courts an independent and co equal branch of government. Even Amendment eighty is only twenty years old I think that's a good sign that the people of this state don't want to re politicized access to justice it's worth noting in relation to this how broad and strong the opposition was to issue one two years ago the coalition included institutions from across the political spectrum churches nonprofits consumer organizations and more for example Jerry **** is a staunch conservative I'm a staunch liberal but we were strong allies in opposition issue one likewise Mike Masterson is a strong staunch conservative columnist for the Democrat Gazette and John Brummett is a staunch liberal for the same paper but they both fiercely opposed issue one. Moreover as representative Dotson acknowledged when he presented H. J. R. ten fifteen the House companion to S. J. R. nine when he presented before a committee of late last week early last week only sixteen states he noted grant control over procedure to the legislature thirty four states right we have final authority over a court procedure in the courts where it belongs and is already been noted the federal system is very different I want to briefly comment on the important questions Senator Garner asked earlier. We don't know exactly where the lines of authority are how much Congress could do to regulate the courts it's never been litigated but what is well established as courts have inherent authority and any rules adopted by Congress that would do anything to treat the courts is no longer a co equal branch would likely be stricken under article three the rules enabling act which functions right now grants so much authority to the courts in the rulemaking that it's never raised any of those inherent power issues. Those who support us J. R. nine and other types of tort reform generally come from special interest lobbies seeking to shield their members from their own reckless conduct conduct that often results in serious injury and death instead of cleaning up their own bad practices which is the real reason they get sued they want to shirk their legal obligations and try to come up with rules that deny our Kansans their day in court. It's really important to look at the industries that are supporting STR nine and the proposals the concerned damages caps it's almost entirely indices like nursing home industry the trucking industry looking for ways to limit their own liability whatever anyone says about these rules and these proposals those industries would not be supporting these proposals if they didn't think it was going to benefit them directly to the detriment of Mostar Kansans as Jerry **** just explained. During the discussions on HDR ten fourteen the point was raised up there are not enough checks and balances on our courts but I strongly disagree our courts are elected which is a critical check there is the constitutional amendment process and impeachment I see no real basis to suggest that there's a problem that needs to be reined in with our courts and Arkansas courts are deeply respected not just in this state but around the country. I think it's interesting that this is on the agenda the same day's essay are ten STR ten would give the Senate and the legislature the authority to bring themselves into session to treat them like a truly independent co equal branch Esther nine would go in the exact opposite direction stripping power away from the courts and I think the lesson of SJR ten suggests why we should not adopt S. J. R. nine. Let me put the issue the way I see it in broad terms where is the more likely harm if we leave the rulemaking authority in the hands of the courts which have been proven time and again to not be above politics but be far more immune to politics and legislative bodies or give the rulemaking authority to legislative bodies that I think makes the issue quite clear the courts are the better place to have this. I think some of said the system was not terrible before it Amendment eighty but it wasn't great and one of the things Amendment eighty did is anticipated problems that we're building up in the nineties in the nineties there was a real movement towards politicization of the courts at the federal level at the state levels around the country and one of the things Amendment eighty did is it created some critical insulation for the justice system in this state and so even to the extent the system wasn't terrible before Amendment eighty Amendment eighty assured that a lot of problems we see around the country didn't come to Arkansas and with that I think I will stop thank you very much and of course I'll take any questions right there was any questions for Mr Silverstein sorry I pronounced wrong result translations are correct Senator according to my parents will fantastic I agree with your parents. but I do apologize if I'd known I would've done it differently I see no questions that are here we do appreciate you for your testimony today appreciate all the members and all the audience who testified in with that members I do wanna make mention that we do have several of these that are down for Thursday and so when I know that that may make for a long day but we need to get through them so thank you for your patience in your work with that were Jr.