State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

The ninety one representative Tosh you're recognized presenter bill. The more I have a. Carol sure with the department of corrections that table would mean I'll let her identify herself for the record. Yeah if you go ahead and put on our self you may proceed thank you good afternoon my name is Christine crier I'm the chief legal counsel for the department of corrections. The chair committee members this bill what it does is the The sex offender assessment committee. When the transformation took place in twenty nineteen during the languages they got left out and they just kind of been out there on their own and so what we're doing with this bill of we had made a couple of corrections warm it prior a they wore under the department of corrections that saying learner and that we changed that in transformation now so department of corrections so it's plural so all we're doing is putting them back under the department of corrections now and that's where they were before there was uh election a name change from saying or the plural and that's exactly what this bill does And that's that's it I'll be glad to take any questions questions representative Richmond you're recognized question. Thank you Mr chair I'm just curious did somebody discover this or did you voluntarily put yourself back underneath the supervision I believe someone actually discover this it has been since transformation in July of twenty nineteen the sex offender assessment committee has been functioning under the now Division of correction all these titles get kind of confusing but this will place the sex offender assessment committee under the department of corrections who will be answering ultimately to the Secretary of corrections. Thank you ma'am thank you Mr thank you. Any other questions for committee members. Seeing none we don't have anybody signed up to speak for against anyone in the audience like speak for against Senate representative Tashi like clothes for your bill I'm closing of the bill does make a motion for do pass okay of motion do pass on table any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye opposed congratulations your bills passed Resented Tosh you're going to present Senate concurrent resolution eight as well the correct that's correct wish chairman I will. You can begin whenever you're ready okay thank you this is This is Senate bill senate joint resolution eight of Senator Rapert from the Senate in all this is is a resolution that she has been sent to our federal congressional delegation just asked them to contact the president and try to expedite the The census you know that's extremely important as you know we're in Arkansas we we should have already had it it was been postponed a couple times now it's been pushed all the way to September and it we're just trying to show that a you know if there's any help you can give us here in Arkansas to get the president to expedite that to get to senses to that's what this resolution does not to it. Okay any questions by committee members. So representantes will do you know the exact date have they given an exact date of when we might get the sense that a the last time I was told and of course you understand committee with the reason state agencies is doing this this is the committee that is been given the responsibility for the redistricting of the congressional districts and and so it's plan a major role as we make those decisions but the only date that I know right now is been September you know sometime in September that's where it's been pushed her nail I don't know if they could move that updates hopefully you were sending a message to resist resolution we could we would sure appreciate it if the hood yes thank you for the any other questions but committee members. We don't have anybody again signed up to speak for against somebody in the audience like to speak for against see a non representative Tosh you because of this resolution. Mr I'm close with that I would make a motion to pass I have a motion to pass on a C. R. eight any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye All opposed graduations your resolution is passed. Thank you Mr vice chair I appreciate that committee members will now move to Constitutional amendments House bill thirteen thirty seven before we get constitution damage that bill is being moved to the far latest thirteen thirty seven for your information. Hello again to ready for constitutional amendments the first one up is HJR one thousand five and I come in just for those of you in the audience so if you've not been here while we've been presenting the constitutional amendments of what they've been presented that this committee is not taken up or down vote on them we're we're just listen to on we're going through each one for informational purposes only and then we'll meet after we've heard all of them and we'll as a committee will decide then what we're going to do so first up today's representative ray. Welcome to state agencies again. And you're recognized to present age J. R. one thousand five. Okay thank you Mr chairman and thank you members of this committee for the opportunity to present to you a H. J. R. one zero zero five for your consideration this is also known as the constitutional amendment and ballot initiative reform amendment I can summarize what this amendment does in one simple sentence it would place a much needed safeguard on our initiative in constitutional amendment process by simply requiring a sixty percent passage of threshold as opposed to a bare majority. This amendment is modeled after one a similar provision that Florida adopted in two thousand six and cents Florida has adopted that provision back in oh six it is served their state and their citizens quite well. There's numerous reasons that we should strengthen and safeguard our initiative in constitutional amendment process and I'll highlight a couple of those for you here today. The first is it should not be easy to amend our constitution and we shouldn't do it and just some sort of willing day fashion. If you look at our federal constitution which we all revere it is only been amended twenty seven times in the history of our country. And yet our state constitution which has been in existence for about less amount of time has been amended a hundred and two times and county. Secondly Arkansas has some pretty lenient laws when it comes to ballot initiatives and Constitutional amendments. In our rules our system of rules leaves us susceptible to big money and out of state interests who might want to hijack our initiative in constitutional amendment process to advance their pet projects. Think about it from the perspective if you were a billionaire in California. You might look at it you might have a hobby horse issue maybe universal basic income for example you might look at a state like Arkansas and say well. I can spend a half million or quarter million dollars and paid canvassers and get this thing on the ballot pretty easy the rules are all that stringent. And then because Arkansas is a small rural state. Our media markets aren't all that expensive I could swoop in with another million million and a half dollars I could run TV ads until my heart's content and convince the voters in that state at least temporarily at least fifty point zero one percent that this is a good idea. In forever our state constitution could be changed. We've seen instances in recent years where private companies to try to put their name in our state constitution. So what I'm trying to prevent with this amendment is I'm trying to keep us from becoming like California a state that has become basically ungovernable because of their outrageously lax and lenient ballot initiative in constitutional amendment process. Just to give you a little bit of perspective in California between nineteen ninety six and two thousand sixteen. The average number of ballot propositions that their citizens consider in a given year is eighteen. And they vote on all kinds of stuff I looked up just in the last couple years the things they've had to vote on and it's things ranging from of they asked their citizens to weigh in on abolishing cash bail banning the sale of meat from animals raised in confined spaces to how the taxes that they levy on plastic bags at grocery stores are going to be spent I mean it's it's absurd. And so. I want to put up a simple guardrail that will prevent us from ever going there. Just a few additional things I'll point out about this amendment number one this amendment treats all issues whether they are citizen initiated or legislative really referred the exact same way both there would be subject to the sixty percent threshold. And I think that's important I think the voters need to know that there will be an equal standard. We're not favoring the legislature over the citizens secondly I purposefully chose not to apply the sixty percent threshold to referendums I think the referendum should be treated a little bit differently there a defensive measure that's intended to be a check on the legislative branch and so they're not an offense to measure like a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment would be so I excluded them from this amendment. And third I just. State that I I think there's broad consensus in the legislature that something needs to be done to safeguard our ballot initiative in constitutional amendment process at the evidence for that is that last session issue three received very broad support I think sixty eight votes in the house and twenty five votes in the Senate now it's worth pointing out that the voter did not approve issue three but I think we learned a lot from issue three and this provision is very different in a couple of important ways which all point out. Issue three contained a lot of different provisions I think five or six different things were put into that issue this issue as with those And that many things being considered in one issue I think it made it confusing for a lot of folks I think it made it easy for the opposition to distort what that issue did or what it was intended to do. this issue is very simple it contains one simple issue sixty percent threshold. I think it's also different in another important way in that nothing in this bill makes it any harder to get any issue on the ballot it does not restrict ballot access in anyway what it simply says is if something is going to be passed into law through this process there should be some genuine consensus among the voters. All ends this presentation by just asking you to imagine with me that we're in Arkansas in the year twenty thirty one. Five elections from now. And what that might look like. By then Arkansas could very well of. Legalize recreational marijuana. We could very well have a it could be legal to have a casino in every county. We have a twenty dollar minimum wage by then because the fight for fifteen would be long gone. Speaking of longer on our system of two party primaries is long gone because will of what we do over we have replaced it with the jungle primary system. And we can be in a situation where we're helping to abolish the electoral college because we've adopted the national popular vote compact. Those are just a few of many distinct possibilities that could become a reality if we choose to ignore this issue and not adopt additional safeguards like HJR one zero zero five provides and with that be happy to answer any questions the representative grading committee any questions from committee members. Seeing none of that we've got one person signed up to speak against against the bill. Mr Josh Silverstein is that correct Sir correct yes Sir if you would just introduce yourself to the committee for the record. My name is Josh Silverstein and I'm a law professor I live and work here in Little Rock however I'm speaking on my own behalf in my individual capacity not on behalf of the university sure you're recognized state thank you I'm gonna take this office I go a little bit more quickly not have to breathe so much. So I put myself down as opposed but I'm actually fifty fifty on this I support part of it and I oppose part of it I'm going to start with the part that I oppose because I put myself down on for that so the United States as a nation and every individual state within our union is a democracy not an absolute democracy but democracy and a fundamental principle of democracy is that the majority gets to rule in most areas of public policy simply because it's a majority accordingly decisions with respect to legislation whether voted on by our representatives for the population as a whole should be decided by majority rule. This means that raising the threshold for any popular vote regarding legislation is in my view in consistent with our democratic ideals that's why I can't support H. J. R. one zero zero five in full but I do support the resolution part for largely the reasons representative ray focused on and that is because in this country and every state we're not just a democracy we are constitutional democracies the essence of constitutionalism is that certain principles of fundamental importance are pleased to be on the reach of popular regular political majorities some of those principles concern the structure of government like the independence of the judiciary all this concern fundamental individual rights like the rights to freedom of speech religion to bear arms and the like the principles intended to go beyond the reach of regular majorities are placed in constitutions and generally constitutional rules whether they concern the structure of government or individual rights can only be changed by a supermajority. Yes I describe this idea to my students when I teach the constitutional theory of Robert Bork which coincidentally I'll be covering tonight in my legal philosophy class. Constitutions are intended to be super majoritarian checks on transient majorities I'll repeat that constitutions are super majoritarian checks on transient majorities. Whitaker majorities common go parties trade power in Washington Little Rock in other capitals and the views of the population on matters of public policy you're constantly shifting that is what I mean by transient majorities put simply majorities are always changing. Amir majority to change the structure of government or our fundamental rights in the political system would be to one stabilised representative raise concern with that is why the trend across the globe has been in favor of constitutional democracy like we have in this country rather than any other type of government whether democratic or otherwise. So the most important features of government our place to be on the reach of mere majorities if you want to change the fundamental structure of government or change fundamental individual rights you should need a supermajority to do it all we want to supermajority exists can we trust that there's sufficient basis for changing something so important in essence according to Robert Bork the way the American government works is this the super majority says to the majority here's your sphere of government and to the individuals here's your sphere of individual rights and the courts police that boundary case by case in dated eight situations but if you want to move for that wine is you need to come back to the super majority to ask for permission to change something that is so fundamental the logical extension of this is a constitution should only be amenable when a super majority supports the change otherwise it's simply too easy to alter you lose what I believe is the most important feature of constitutionalism which is that the most sacred pieces of our political system can only be changed when a super majority favors the change either support H. J. R. one zero zero five to the extent it would make the Arkansas constitution were difficult to amend I would leave the threshold at fifty percent plus one for legislation thank you very much for hearing my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr president any questions but that should representative Whitaker you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr thank professor of. Agreeing with you. Of. However comma. When we. In those limited role times when we are allowed on the floor of the house to amend the constitution under Amendment fifty one. We do a true supermajority which is sixty seven of one hundred. What are your thoughts of sixty versus sixty so if you want if you want to have a three supermajority why shouldn't this resolution six sixty seven percent. Question. The notion of a super majority is generally thing anything over a majority so it could be fifty one and a half percent for example if we think of fifty one percent as the limit and I think there is what's reasonable basis to draw the line at different places two thirds sixty percent some things are three quarters at the university when we have supermajority requirements they range from sixty percent up to three quarters it depends on the circumstances so I don't think I have a strong view one precisely where you draw the line the general sense among scholars is that the American constitution is too difficult to amend and most state constitutions are too easy to amend I think sixty percent is a real good fair change but I'd be very sympathetic if you wanted to be sixty six or even seventy I don't have a strong view exactly where we are I think that for the first time we're going to do this I think representative raise right to not push for too much the people might be more comfortable with sixty percent which I think would be a great step in the right direction thank you. Representative Dotson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair Mr Silverstein's book before and kind of against this but we would. It seems to me that you probably spent more than six percent of your time speak for this. I think that's fair thank you. You saying no further questions from committee members Mr Severstal thank you for your time we appreciate you pair of practice before the committee thank you for any I technically on the agenda for ten fourteen as well but I have to head back to the law school for presentation there so you'll have to be deprived of my testimony on that one I'm sorry. J.. A representative Brady if you have any closing comments I would just like to thank the chair and the members of this committee for your patience I know that you're betting a lot of different proposals for constitutional amendments some of them I'm big fans seven agree with and so as you're sorting through this process I just hope you remember that this is one of the most pressing issues facing our state and just really appreciate the opportunity to present to you today thank you. Thank you Rinpoche to appear before the committee. Committee members next item on today's agenda we're skipping over a house joint resolution one thousand seven. We're be next is AJ are we can fourteen representative junction representative Johnson. You are recognized to present to attend fourteen is so you have someone to the table with the president would justify use of the committee yes Sir thank you Mister chairman Justin Allen attorney here in Little Rock today speaking in support of this resolution on behalf of the state chamber of the Arkansas trucking association the poultry federation the medical society the hospital association in Arkansas health care association. Okay representative Johnson you're recognized to present your Constitutional amendment thank you Mr chairman and colleagues I appreciate your time today I know it's a long day I try to be brief my remarks and that this is the season Committee and many of you were here in twenty seventeen when this issue was referred out to the people in a different form and so I know you're familiar with the arguments what I want to try to say initially is that you know in two thousand three a bunch of folks just like asking them to the eighty fourth the General Assembly and they sit together like we sit together and they discussed issues and in the process of doing that they made I'm sure what was the time the difficult decision which was to pass as civil Justice Reform Act and in this Act there were caps that on NONECONOMIC punitive damages it that was a bill that passed overwhelmingly both sides so is eighty seven to eight in the house in thirty forty one in the Senate so the time the legislative body felt like in the way they a read the constitution it was within their purview to make these kind of decisions as lawmakers in that particular act stood in Arkansas up until about two thousand eleven when the Supreme Court decided it was in fact unconstitutional in their opinion for the legislature to be able to weigh into this issue I think it's easy to lose track of that as we discuss this resolution because this resolution is not about setting caps this resolution is not necessarily about tort reform this resolutions about deciding legislative authority this resolution is about letting the people of Arkansas weigh in and decide today believe that we as their elected members should have the ability to weigh into this issue and have the debate over whether there should even be cap said and so I think that is easy again to lose track of that I think it's important we understand specifically what we're trying to do with this resolution as opposed to the issues referred out in two thousand seventeen this would not put any caps in the constitution but would only clarify this issue that really we've been asked to clarify clarify the. Issue of whether or not the people of Arkansas want us to have this legislative authority and with that I was gonna let Justin speak to some of the other things that might come out of this war we allowed to have that debate and then of course will be happy to answer any questions thank you representative I I think you hit on again and and I was here last week talking to you ladies and gentleman about another resolution that was part of issue one or S. J. R. eight from twenty seventeen this also is part of what was there with the major difference in the representative touched on it this measure if adopted would not put any caps in the constitution it would make clear that the General Assembly would have the authority to establish caps in the future on non economic and punitive damages if it so chooses it's under no obligation to adopt the cap at all it would be a Charles discretion refusal of legislators at the discretion to perhaps a limited to medical malpractice only which is the case where the caps or in many states and make other types of exception states that have authority to set caps have been fairly creative and flexible in what when they think cap should apply when they shouldn't apply so again this would give the General Assembly the authority to have that debate if the next regular session if this measure were to get on the ballot and pass I have as you might guess a lot of information about it tort reform caps whatever you may want to call it what it means for the business community and states and what it means for the healthcare community in the states and and you've most of you all if not all you've heard at I'm not going to bore you with all of them I certainly got it available and we'll send it to you but no discussions about what has happened in Texas especially on the medical front since they adopted reforms including damage caps around two thousand and three and how what it is done for the medical community in that state especially the rural community and and staying on the health care in a the American college of emergency physicians as stated. The Arkansas should enact medical liability reform such as medical liability cap on non economic damages you see hospitals advertising for jobs as being in a quote tort reform states such as regional Medical Center in Louisiana that did that in twenty seventeen the American medical association supports caps on non economic damages and the two thousand nineteen Arkansas Republican Party platform endorses limiting the extent of damage claims involving pain and suffering which of course is a non economic damages cap Again it's a much different than the last measure it would just clarify that the General Assembly has a forty if it so chooses to adopt caps on either a punitive and or NONECONOMIC. Okay thank you Mr Allen Preciado your testimony committee members any questions for representative Johnson or to turn. Represent to make sure recognized for a question. So the the last time we had a similar constitutional amendment you can we all know the outcome who would be opposed to this because we are talking about potentially setting caps and have you done any sort of polling to see what kind of response you're getting from the public as to whether they would support or oppose something like this. Yes the representative makes it you're going to hear from several lawyers here in a moment that are very much opposed to this and I respect them and their positions on this and as I'm sure they respect mine the yes certainly when during the two thousand and seventeen effort there was a lot of polling done internal polling public polling it would be close if the polling is accurate I'm not gonna lie to you about that but there is an appetite among the voters in Arkansas to address this in some form or fashion and again it would be our hope that this one being different from the last one even though we didn't get the final vote would probably appeal more to the voters again because it would establish caps in the constitution. The other questions from committee members. Casey none thank you mistrials. Representative Johnson we're up we're going to move now to speakers against the bill saying no further questions for committee members for use so You would just I guess but move over there make room for Mister Mr Silverstein you still here did you want would you like to speak before you leave. Okay well that's fine with me Mister Rogers co give me an opportunity you were listed I don't know that that's going to any order but that's timely Mr Paul key to recognize come the end table. May I remove my mask Mr chairman thank you all for whatever you want to spend time with me. Thank you I appreciate that. thank you very much Mr chairman vice chairman Gonzalez members of the committee. Thank you for taking some time to consider this very important issue this afternoon my name is Paul Keith I think we act I was here a week ago the president the Arkansas Bar Association we have about five thousand lawyers in our association and I am here today because our members like representative ray are very serious about changes that are proposed our constitution in fact we take them so seriously that the Bar Association doesn't even take a position on a constitutional amendment without a three fourths vote of either our legislative committee or board of trustees. R. sixty trustees are elected by our members from around the state and let him last Friday by three to one margin they voted to oppose the house joint resolution ten fourteen. As you've heard H. J. R. ten fourteen will give authority to the General Assembly to set caps on damages. I've heard that the bill is not about setting caps on damages but with respect that's at the center of the bill and when the General Assembly has when the General Assembly has the authority to set caps on damages. It will violate our Kansans right to a trial by jury. Of the people of Arkansas have been serious about the right to a trial by jury since the days of Davy Crockett. In fact the eighteen thirty six kind constitution the eighteen sixty one constitution the eighteen sixty four constitution and the eighteen seventy two constitutions all contain provisions that say the right to trial by jury shall be in violate. So for over a hundred and thirty five years we have placed an emphasis on and we respected the right to trial by jury. You know if. Jurors can hear cases and decide who goes to prison. Or who goes for execution they can decide civil cases as they have shown and there are no run it there's not a problem with the runaway juries in Arkansas state jury verdicts are generally very conservative in Arkansas. So there's no reason to think that you're or as if they can decide matters of life and death can't decide civil cases. After they've heard all of the evidence another problem with H. J. R. ten fourteen is that the the General Assembly will be setting caps without having heard any of the evidence a basic tenant of ours civil justice system is that you hear the evidence and the jury the fact finder makes the decision here's the. General Assembly will be making decisions about damages without having heard any evidence on pain and suffering scars and disfigurement loss of consortium and loss of life. And we already have safeguards in our judicial system for excessive verdicts both for non economic damages for punitive damages and for. even of. Other types of damages that are assessed and the court finds to be excessive. HAART ten fourteen turns this long held conviction of hearing cases on the merits and hearing them on the evidence on its head. For example the General Assembly under H. J. R. ten fourteen could actually meet and set the value of human life. They would be able to. Set the value of a marriage relationship without knowing anything about the people involved. We recognize that there are powerful interest. Per variant who've who will be disappointed. That we have taken this position and we recognize that these interest. Have more resources than will ever be able to muster. That's why it's important for us to have this thoughtful discussion here today. Confronted with this fact last Friday one of our trustees reminded all of the US of the oath that we took when we became lawyers and it reads like this I will not reject. From many consideration personal to myself the calls of the impoverished the defenseless or the oppressed. I would submit to you that's not a bad hole for all of us to take when we meet and when we represent others. As leaders. Over twenty seven hundred years ago we were warned against making under US laws and denying justice to the oppressed. H. J. R. ten fourteen will put this General Assembly under constant pressure. To make unjust laws that denied justice the night of the long held right to a jury trial to every Arkansas. And it's incumbent upon me to remind each member of this committee. That we haven't heard any. Reasoned that a stay are ten fourteen if it becomes the law and is adopted interact constitution will benefit the ordinary people that are members represent and will benefit the ordinary people that each of you represents. We respectfully submit that this is the place. To stop this resolution and we thank you for your attention I'm happy to take any questions that this committee may have thank you Sir any questions from committee members. Saying none. H. the time next on the agenda is speaking. Against the bill is jim Fletcher Mr Fletcher. Let your view would justify yourself and for the committee and I understand or speak against the bill against the the yes constitutional amendment yes. Thank you Mr chairman in the committee for the opportunity to be here speak to the it is really a privilege I am a writer editor always have worked in that field and five years ago I found myself in a bizarre situation and. I fired an antique rifle that exploded in my face. And I somehow managed to drive myself to the hospital in will get two days later. that began a real learning curve for me about the law and and litigation. To that point my entire knowledge of the law was confined to Perry Mason episodes really. if I had not found superba tourney's I don't know what would happen to me. And so through that three year process. I developed a real passion for people in this situation or similar situations and My empathy for them is really not. And so I'm simply here today to say that. The you know I'm I'm your average or Kansan. We appreciate very much living in a country of representative government. I believe that government is both useful and necessary. I also wanted to be limited. I am a conservative politically and socially. but if to the question specifically here today. It seems to me. That quarrel. I I can clearly see the competence of legislative body to do your jobs. If it comes down to the question of an award for a plaintiff. I want that decision to be in the hands. Of the judicial body. Because they will have gotten to know me in my situation and the facts of my case. And I know that there are people here today that disagree with my position. But here is what I think is the great equalizer. Some day god forbid this happens to you. Or a family member or a friend. I think you would enthusiastically endorsed my position. Because if the question is. What is a life worth what is an I. worth. I want the decision making ability in that case to be with the jury. Because I ask myself that question every day. Thank you very much. Thank you Sir any questions from committee members. Same time we appreciate you appearing before the committee and thank you Sir for your time thank you Sir appreciate. Next up to speak against the bill is Mr Eric. We are chair your well I will let you identify yourself for the Committee agenda and make it set out of there I got there a grad so you would you already identified yourself so we The knowledge to speak against the resolution thank you Mr chairman my name's Eric we were is it's really easy to remember if you're over the age of probably forty just remember the movie the way we were add an S. to it and you got it I am a lawyer I've been practicing law in excess of thirty years I've defended asbestos companies I've defended hospitals I've defended doctors I've defended top pharmaceutical companies and I represented people who have been injured principally in nursing homes and in some medical malpractice I have a brother who's an anesthesiologist at Saint Vincent's and his wife is a neo nay tala just so we have very interesting conversations. And over the years they now understand why tort reform in H. J. R. ten fourteen is bad it's bad for the ordinary citizen of the state of Arkansas I'm also general counsel my pro bono work as general counsel for Arkansas right to life I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my clients not on our I'm not on behalf of Arkansas right to life however. I view. This bill in any bill that affects the dignity in quality of life. As a pro life issue. Arkansas has become known across the country as the most pro life state in the country new exhibited you show that last week with the statutes that have been passed. This will effectively at this rate any protection for the elderly and the defenseless in this state. I have represented clients I have a lady Marty Austin. Married her husband at the age of eighteen. In two thousand fifteen her husband was in a hospital. Had a central catheter line it is Chester removed while he was sitting upright. At about a forty five degree angle according to the nurses notes. They didn't use an air clues addressing to prevent air going into the when when the when the catheter was taken out. Nurse noted she here heard gurgling lifted the gauze again heard gurgling again. Put tape over it. Within five minutes Mr Austin had suffered a bilateral stroke fifteen days later he was dead. Prior to this event he had no terminal health issues at all he was fine in fact he was slated to be transferred to a regular floor and go home within the next forty eight hours. This bill would effectively allow this legislator legislature to say that his life is worth acts his pain and suffering is worth a certain amount let's say it's two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. You know how that's handled. Texas shows you how it's handled and by the way I practice in Texas for twelve years. Tort reform in Texas two hundred fifty thousand dollar cap here's what the insurance company does here's what the self insured people do they come in and they'll tell the plant floor well two hundred fifties all you're going to get for this guy because he's unemployed he's retired he's not he doesn't have any economic damages because you know he was killed within two hours so there's really nothing there two hundred fifty is all you're going to get. It's going to cost your attorney sixty thousand dollars to try the case and get it to verdict then there's going to be appeal so that's gonna be another twenty thousand dollars so now we're down to about nine somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred and fifty to a hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the best case scenario for you. So we'll pay you a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars and that's it. That's what happens ladies and gentleman it's that simple. No facts are hard. No one gets to make a decision based on the actual evidence. But a random number is determined to be the value of the case. Or you governor junior five who is taking care of her sixty year old sister in our sister in law with special needs who choked to death in a nursing home because they gave her a full piece of chicken. To have cancer I know you give us a lot of incidents and we we we're we're kind of familiar with a lot of that but it you do and that and I I use that one example I thought that was a very appropriate but at some point you know we we could go through that up those examples all day long so if you could. We've got other people signed up but I sure don't want to cut you short we want to hear everything you have to say so you can kind of move forward I appreciated what do Mr chairman I apologize. The bottom line. Ladies and gentlemen is. You clearly trust your constituents at home. They voted for you they got you here your trusted. You trust that they can hear an argument here position analyze it and make the right decision. That's what a jury is for in this bill strips the public of that responsibility. That's what a jury is supposed to do. They hear the evidence they sit through a trial they have they get to evaluate the witnesses and decide each and every case on an individual basis. That's justice. Justice is not come in a one size fits all formats. Justice is not a government mandated value. Justice is individualized. In by placing a cap on damages be a pain and suffering mental anguish loss of life damages. That's what you're doing. You're leading the collective you're letting the centralized government make that determination. And for my social studies classes. That smacks a lot of socialism. And that sounds kind of harsh. And I understand that. But it is I'm a conservative all the way I'm one of maybe five conservative trial lawyers in this state. In the reason is because I believe in the constitution. Believe in limited government and I believe in letting people be held accountable for their actions be them good or bad. With this bill you are allowing. Particularly the largest proponent of it the nursing homes to operate with the band. And that sounds silly but I can tell you the calls that we've gotten since they've been presents families have been able to get back into nursing homes it's become worse than what it was well before covid. I appreciate your time. If I came across is overly passionate I apologize this is something that's near and dear to me not because it's my profession. But because his father probably told me a Catholic high it will exist in the world because good men allowed and I fight against it thank you for your time and I'll take any questions thank you guys so we do have a couple questions representative Ladyman you're recognized. Thank you Mister chair I I think I have a question I was very interested in what you're saying there about who determines the value of a life and representation in a jury. So jury's what thirteen people twelve people would generally two alternates depending on the on the case of. So I mean we're a hundred thirty five people. I know we're not individual cases I'm just thinking aloud here I'm not. Talking negatively the said and you gave us cases which are bad cases and they and they happen we're people are treated badly do you know of any cases where people get way too much money do you ever get a case where. You know they wore way more money than in the situation. Requires. Well I would suspect that a lot of people would point to the main a verdict back in the early two thousands AS one of those examples and I would echo Mr Keese example that the Supreme Court has mechanisms to take care of that and they did that they reduce that verdict to be quite honest with you representative Ladyman I personally have never had that issue my issue has been more on the other side where a jury in Arkansas may award fifty thousand dollars and think they gave the money in one case I got seventy five thousand dollars in the foreperson of the jury she came and talked to me and she said you look disappointed and I said well to be honest with you ma'am I'd ask for five hundred thousand for my client I I am and she said but we gave you seventy five thousand dollars. So. It's the perspective of the jurors. And while that will vary that's the way the constitution set up they hear the evidence they get to make the decision and whether I agree with that or not. They've they've made their assessment and because they hear everything I think that's the right way to go but short answer is outside of the main a verdict where the court handled it now. Well the reason I ask these questions. We're forty eighth in health in the nation. We we need to do something to improve that and what I hear is that you know the cost of medical treatment and access and there a lot of things that causes us to be the forty eighth worst state in the nation. And we need to do some things to fix that and I don't know whether the cost of what we're talking about here to the medical community is part of that problem. But as you said different cases one can go way up one can be too low that that fluctuates and whether that's a detriment to us improving our public health I don't know. But it could be. Represent would you disagree thank you of it well well I what I will tell you is is that I would disagree I would disagree because on my experience in excess of ninety five percent of the medical malpractice cases that go to trial end up with a defense verdict. Right there. And you want to talk about you know quote crisis or whatever for me to take what I would consider just to be a a basic nursing home case to trial VOL broken hip type case to take it to trial I'm looking at put in sixty to seventy thousand dollars out of my own pocket on that case and if I lose. I lose that money as I put it to my brother would you go to would you go to Vegas for Serra Senate prime bluff and put seventy thousand dollars on black red or black nine and let it roll. But that's what we do and representing injured individuals in the state of Arkansas every day. Thank you thank you Mr okay representative. Many times that may have many judgments review ever actually been involved in it more than the amount that was more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars after does that even happen does that count the ones well does are you asking about the ones in Texas to use. No way hello to me one member team whatever twenty I'm happy times is that kind of judgment ever ball backward even reaches that amount I would say with since two thousand and ten for me. I've got one. Sure very shall remember rises to that level of of of a capital B. B. two hundred fifty thousand is that correct. That's that's on a trial but you need to understand that the cap will impact settlements like I talked about with what they're doing in Texas if you want to ask me about settlements in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars Mr chairman that's a different number. Okay. The page you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. So I really appreciate your. Passion for juries and and trust in the jury and and I frankly would have no trouble with trusting juries but isn't it true that the vast majority of these cases get settled by the attorneys and the insurance companies who evidently don't trust the jury or they're not willing to gamble as you were talking about on what the jury may award or not award. I wouldn't say that it's a lack of trust it's an assessment of the of the risks would you say is the vast majority of these cases that stand up settling yes I don't know if it's the vast majority I will say I would agree with you that would use the the additive or the adverb or adjective large. I mean if it's a if it's a valid if it's if it's a case that the insurance company believes is valid generally they they put money on it but if it's a if it's even close to a fifty fifty shot those are generally fought hard all the way through and then it becomes an economic decision on the on behalf of the insurance company not the doctor or the hospital. Hello yes. So after stating your passion for juries and and I'm and I. I feel for that too. When you say that's an injustice is that it never makes it to the jury. My job is to represent my client and do the best job for my client if a number to settle a case is placed on the table and my client says take it sometimes it's because they feel that numbers valid sometimes and most of the time it's because they're tired of being drug out and they just need it to be over and they're willing to take a lower number but at the end of the day a settlement is an agreement between the parties that we think that this is a response that this amount whatever it is will adequately resolve this matter and it's. He. I would I would say that that's the best in the most appropriate way to handle this is that each case be resolved individually the caps the capped provide. A and on level unbalanced playing field whereas now it is very balanced and very even. I take another one to give it I'll let you have it. So. So basically a lot of times it's not about what a life was worth or what the injury was worth but it's more about what you can get or what you're afraid you might not can get and that a lot of times it based on whose pay and whether somebody had insurance or didn't have insurance and how deep the pockets are is that that what you're saying what when you're saying they're taking all these things into consideration and about making a settlement. The the quote death of a pocket bill doesn't factor into how much more I would take for instance in in a settlement what it would be What's. What is considered in a settlement or the facts of the case the jurisdiction how long it's going to be before we can go to trial how the witnesses look what type the jury may we get to be quite honest with you the jury's we get in the state of Arkansas and I've practice from Texarkana to Fayetteville to the poor city down to Lake Village and I can tell you that ninety to ninety five percent of the juries that I pick. Most of us would classify them as conservative juries. And so you have to factor all of those things in and at the end of the day. The. We're not putting. A dollar value on a life. Because a life is priceless I don't care who you are. A life is priceless. What we're putting a value on is a set of facts. And the actions or in actions of the parties involved in that case. Life is priceless so there's not a dollar figure you can put out there on a that that would represent the value of the life we're talking about the value of a set of actions or in actions and the injuries that are suffered insisting there for as a result that. And that's different to me than saying a life is worth Tax. And on that we would agree that life is is priceless you can't put a value on. It just. Most of these don't get before a jury and you have a judge in a few lawyers in the defendant and the and plaintive that are reaching an agreement based on those facts based based on those facts. That are unimpeded. By legislation when you factor in the cap now you're now you're having you're placing a dramatic impact on those negotiations. I just want to work on it okay all right it's unimpeded by legislation except for the fact that we do this the state does force some of the defendants in these cases to be insured to certain limits. And that definitely affects not nursing homes that's not hospitals well it's not all about nurses not doctors not doctors none of them are forced to have insurance. And there are a number of them that don't. But if you operate on mobile you're forced to have insurance right minimum of twenty five thousand dollars right. Right thank you Mr. Thank you to the city no further questions god we appreciate your time next opponent agenda to speak against the bill is Jerry Cobb Mr **** you're recognized go the end table and speak against Bill. Thank you Mr chair and members of the committee and. I know the hour is kind of getting on and I'll try to be brief and not repeat what other people have said but. When I look at this proposed amendment here here's what I see I see a debate over. The dignity of individual people it may be my my people my love ones years maybe you maybe maybe some day for in a nursing home or in a hospital or or wherever. But. When you come right down to it. I think we have to ask a question. Who's best qualified. To decide what damages all to be if somebody gets hurt. who's best qualified to figure out what those NONECONOMIC in punitive damages should be as this as this bill are this legislation prescribes. Obviously I think we all of us would say a jury of twelve people who have heard all the facts would be the absolute most qualified to decide what what ought to be what what the what the amount should be I think that goes without saying. I think some people are concerned about runaway juries and obscenely high verdicts and so forth. I was out here a look at the capitol in two thousand three when the tort reform measure was passed in so I've looked at this may this this type of legislation ever since then. And the more I look at it. I really am mmhm I'm more and more convinced that this is best left in the hands of local people local communities local juries to decide these things. There's a reason that the powerful corporate interests are behind this this amendment I mean you heard the list read off at the beginning there's a reason that they're behind it. Now some would tell you it's all about business and commerce and some will tell you it's all about good health care is represent Ladyman was was asking about and that's a good really good question is why do we have a shortage of doctors. We looked at this issue. About wine Arkansas has a shortage of medical good medical people it's not because they're afraid they're going to get sued it's a whole bunch of other factors that come into this some don't want to live in a small town it's just that simple someone to be in a big place where they could be part of a big group of doctors and not have to work you know twelve hour days and so forth there's lots of things but it's not because they're afraid they're going to get sued. I think when you come right down to it. This measure hurts three three kinds of people. It hurts the elderly who are in the nursing homes. It hurts stay at home moms. In her children. Do you know why. It's because they really don't have. The values that you can put on a spreadsheet and add up. Where if you have a person that has a job they'll say well this person lost their livelihood because they got hurt so we'll figure out how much they might have learned in their lifetime and here's your here's your settlement. But if you're a stay at home mom. If you're driving down the road in your committee van with your kids and the Thai shoddy tire blows out one of the first things they're going to ask you when it comes to non economic damages well what is this what what what is this person's future like. And lord help you if you're an old person is if you are left injured someone in a nursing home. They're gonna say well how much longer was gonna live anyway what kind of quality of life to be have anyway. And we end up. It creating a situation where these people are left out. There was a case ladies and gentleman up in Jonesborough we're little girl was playing on some big big pipes that were left in a field and these pipes weighed like fourteen hundred pounds in these kids went out there and they were playing on those the one of those big pipes rolled over in that little girl suffocated underneath one of those pipes then there was litigation and it turns out that there were about four entities that were at fault the people that left the pipes out there the people that unloaded off the truck it didn't secure them and so forth had there been severe caps on those damages that case probably would never even made it to trial. And so when you say set caps it's not just about trying to keep some run away jury from going crazy with the verdict it's about justice for individual little people out here who may need that justice and so I think if I was in I think you would agree if you were in court. Wouldn't you rather have your fate in the hands of twelve people that heard the facts of your case rather than have an elected body in Little Rock said an arbitrary number and say no more than this and the no more than this could be any number. What this amendment would do. It will give every legislative body from now on a blank check. It will give every legislative body from now on a blank check to write in any number that they want. In cap damages. And you cannot tell me that the corporate interests to walk these halls every day aren't going to be here trying to see that those caps are set in a way that favors them rather than the little people out here that we all care about. And I know you are well intended. But you know in a few years none of us will be here but at that amendment passes it'll be here. And it will give whatever legislative body sits around this table and in this building the ability to have that blank check to write whatever they want in there and that's why I'm concerned about this and that's why I'm against it. Mr chairman sorry for taking so long but I'll be glad to entertain any questions that folks might have okay thank you Mr college representative June did you have a question okay what year are representative nine dollars you're recognized for a question thank Mister Scott I know that you believe that all men are created equal do you believe that they carry that same equal value throughout their life I absolutely do I think my hundred year old uncle who's in the nursing home down and dirks is at every bit as valuable as any of the rest of us he may not have a long time but he certainly valuable. I would agree to vote if they continue thank you I would agree with that too and that being said would it not make more sense that there is an equal cap for everyone instead of letting twelve jurors decide each each individual case I don't think so and here's why and I understand you're you're you're concerning your question I appreciate it is a good question but here's why I don't think that's appropriate because every case is different. And every circumstance is going to be different and so. Let me put it this way. If a nursing home owner. Knows that the most he can be sued for is let's say two hundred and fifty thousand or five hundred thousand. They're smart enough to sit down with a calculator and say well how many times might we get sued well this committee how much staff can we cut how much services can we cut because we all know that these nursing homes a lot of times already but owned by people in Arkansas the one that my uncle is in was owned by somebody in New Jersey. To those people in New Jersey. My uncle is just a little a a a line on a balance sheet that is all he is to those people I believe. And so if they know that somebody has the ability to sue them and collect a large amount they may say you know what we better take good care of these people but if they know the legislatures already cap that amounted to little bitty amount like two hundred and fifty thousand then all that gets eaten up and pretty soon you don't even have a case and so represent Gonzales that's why I think we need that out there to just hold people accountable in Hoover represent paid you said a lot of these get settled before they they get to to a jury and I believe that's correct but if we lower the cap so low then we end up with the the poor person in here being put at a disadvantage because the the corporate interest look settlements as well the most you can collect is two hundred and fifty thousand so you better settle for a whole lot less than this and they they start at a low point in the they were they work it down and pretty soon they're able to cut corners on whatever they make or do knowing that they can withstand lawsuits and it's a thing of the making the shoddy tires or the exploding gas tanks it's that kind of mentality where they decide you know what if we get sued it won't be for much and we can make shoddy products and go right on with it. I'm especially concerned about our people in the nursing home ladies and gentleman I'm especially concerned about the. Thank you Mister **** NO further questions we preach H. time before the committee thank you thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee I I really appreciate how we appreciate you claim and so representative Johnson would you. I see no one else signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative judging you're recognized making the closing remarks you'd like to make thank you Mr chair and I I appreciate the more remarks the opposition in their stance I think there's a time to have healthy debate over this issue I would say with regard to the right to a jury trial I don't think that that's what we're doing here with this issue I don't see anywhere where the jury trial is gonna happen there's going to be a jury there what we're doing is deciding should the legislative body be able to set parameters on punishment which is something we do regularly we decide as a legislative body whether crimes a misdemeanor or felony we decide parameters for ponds it's a good debate ride is this something that the legislative body should have the authority to do or they the best people to make these decisions or is the best group that a jury I think that's the right argument to be had I guess I would say that the I have my opinions you have your opinions the focus is spoke against us have their opinions I think the right people to make this decision is not me is not the people that spoke for and against but the people of Arkansas and so what I would say is this is an argument we gonna continue to have this debate this can continue to rage there over thirty states that have made the decision to place caps we can't do that in the state because of this constitutional questions I think it's right to let the people of Arkansas decide do we want to potentially be one of those states and if so are they can let the legislative body way and so again that's the asset I think this out there I think I think it's okay to trust the people of Arkansas to make that decision either way and then we can come back later if it fails will know if if it passes then we come back later to have the debate over whether caps is the right thing and so you know where to set this with that'll be close thank you for your time and and consideration. Any questions from committee members for. Representative review well does she have a question. You're recognized thank you Mr under those probably an appropriate time you know in closing that ask questions but you're saying is that we're not taking of up or down vote on this appreciate chair give miscibility there with this it this past with this require the legislature to set caps. No this would just clarify that we would have that authority should we decide to that would be a debate for another day okay thank you. Eleven question I don't have a question I got a comment but I I sit here and listen to this debate and. It's a good debate but. You know I hear people they're talking about big corporations is B. and you'll just concerned with the bottom line. Well that's not always the case. I mean I work for a corporation that turn thirty thousand employees and we cared about the people. And we weren't the big bad people we were people just like these people sitting around this table in I know there are bad actors out there but but to say that you know big companies and all nursing homes. DO that is is an unfair statement and I just had to say that in let me just talk about the situation here what we talk about you know the big companies the nursing homes the doctors or whoever you want talk about on this other questions on the other side you have the legal community who are basically in the same position they're they're looking for the best situation for them. As a entity. so I mean whether it's good or bad guys here I think it's it's wrong to put one group in as the bad guys and another is the good guys it's a it's a discussion and the debate as to what's best for the person. And all we're trying to do here I think is trying to improve that I'm not commence is the best way to do it but but you gotta understand that both sides have something they want out of this decision. With the injured person in the middle. And it's a debate between these two sizes to get what they need or what they want. I don't see a problem with the group like the legislature having oversight. Over these two different entities not talking negative about either one of them but just had made the comment thank you Mr about appreciate comments and the comments from committee members represent Jean Johnson we appreciate your time before the could you have been closing comments no I think I've said all along okay you so much which initiated before this committee thank you so much representative Lundstrum you're next up. A. J. R. ten eighteen. Colleagues I realize I'm between you and dinner so I will make this very fast. first of all. This ballot initiative has to do with the lottery and lottery scholarships. Blue collar workers were left out of the lottery scholarship they were not given an opportunity to access the lottery scholarship as you can imagine we need tradespeople can you imagine life without the number of attorney excuse me not attorneys but plumbers and electricians. We we need those lawyers but we also need our air conditioning and we need our toilet fixed and the second thing is with this those traits people we've that we've convinced our population that everybody must go to college that is simply not true we have a lot of small business owners that are attorneys are specific attorneys on my mind since we've had all this conversation but electricians and hi Dennis. Welding engines trucking you can imagine but unfortunate that was left off of the lottery scholarship with this folks can go to their local vo tech and then come out after a couple of thousand dollars and be able to start forty thousand to seventy two thousand dollar job in Northwest Arkansas alone we have sixty two thousand jobs open right now. All they need is vo tech training without all entertain some questions. Thank you representative. Any questions from committee members. Say none no one is signed up to speak for against you have any closing comments represented Lundstrum we always talk about how important blue collar jobs are and how we need traits in this state it's time to prove it up and add water and add to the lottery scholarship biotech. Jade you're paying before the committee in presenting HA are ten eighteen and while you're at the end of the table it up next is a sale or Jan nineteen. And the you're recognized to. Present your joint resolution. Sure thank thank you can imagine the confusion just going to the store and trying to buy something you don't know what the labels are well imagine going into the voting booth and you don't know what the labels are under judicial candidates all of us run partisan Republican or Democrat we have that on every single ballot except for judicial candidates and when your dish account it you're running for office you can always answer questions but at least you can make a basic comment on whether you're Republican or Democrat we don't go to the store and buy something without a label on it and have to guess why would we make our voters guests the distinguished gentleman that was up here earlier made some very good points about jurors we asked jurors to make life or death situations he made some comments that I thought were very very good he talked about that jurors are asked to decide life and death situations executions they decide civil cases in amounts all heard based on the evidence and when the merits are given voters can be trusted we need to trust voters with the truth we need to take the label off the ropes this that we've been a state four hundred and sixty four years before we change that law. It's only been since two thousand that the voters have been shielded from the basic information of Republican or Democrat I think we can trust the voters to make good decisions with some basic information and with that all entertain any questions thank you representative July too many questions from committee members a representative Payton you're recognized thank you Mr hello Republican Democrat or the big too but they could still run independent yesterday and Green Party or whatever yes anything thank you thank you Mr gain further questions from committee members. Representative regimen you're recognized. All as the question that representative Gonzalez asked once and that is of these two which one do you prefer. Colleagues I have struggled with that question I think it's incredibly important that we take care of the kids of Arkansas these kids have got to have an opportunity or it doesn't necessarily mean kids it could be anybody that wants to go back to school and get a degree or get a certificate in plumbing and electricity and we desperately need coolant machinists engine small engines larger engines those people go on to to work and then start jobs so that's that's a passion of mine that would be the first before partisan judges I think we can come back but we talk a good talk but if we really mean it. We need to put some of these kids in a shot. Thank you ma'am thank you chair. He further questions from committee members. Shame nun NO one is signed up to speak for against the so represented you have any closing remarks anybody want to guess what's in the can. We asked the voters to guess what's on there are ballot. So with that I'll close okay thank you and we appreciate you appear before the committee and thank your time and I'll get out of your hair was gray shirt you committee members we're going to skip over HJR ten twenty one we've got an amendment handout for a J. R. ten twenty two representative Gazaway of the staff is handing out the amendment down to ten twenty two and also of you're probably going to get to amendments the other wannabe for ten twenty three. Which will be coming up here shortly so that's why you have to amendments one of ten twenty two the one we're about to hear. Follow about ten twenty three. Representative of. As well but we got your members handed out you're recognized to Present sure joint resolution ten twenty two. Thank you Mr chairman I know this committee has already heard. Several amendments about court rule making authority and so this is another one that will stand somewhat in contrast to some of the others that have been proposed. But I want to explain specifically what this would do and how it would work part of the argument that we hear when we talk about the legislature having to say and court rule making authority is that we need to adopt the system that the federal government uses between the support the US Supreme Court and the federal rules of evidence and procedure that they prescribe and then the way Congress reviews those rules and so many times what you'll hear in this debate about court rules is what we just need to do it like the feds do it. And I don't necessarily disagree with that but if we're going to do it like the feds do it then we need to make sure the bill that we have actually does it like the feds do it and that's what the bill that I have before you here today does. Essentially the way it would work would be that the Supreme Court retains the ability to prescribe all the rules of pleading practice and procedure. And you know in that debate basically it comes down to a separation of powers issue about respecting the three independent branches of government the Supreme Court the judiciary for instance is it's own separate and equal independent branch of government just like the legislative branch and so we know and I think in terms that are familiar to us the legislative branch sets its own rules the house of representatives we have our own rules the Senate has its own rules the governor and the executive branch cannot tell the house of representatives. What the how to make its own rules or what are rules should be and the governor can't come in until the house of representatives or the Senate or change one of our rules if they don't like it. So for instance if the house and the Senate have rules about when we can meet as a committee of the whole and how we do it that is our own prerogative because as the legislative branch of government we are separate and independent and we retain the authority to make our own rules and so you keep that in mind when you hear these debates about giving the legislature for instance the power to prescribe modify or even create rules of pleading practice and procedure for the courts because again the judiciary and the courts are their own separate and equal branch of government and independent just like that the legislative branches and I would imagine that we would be awfully upset if the governor came down here and said this is what the House rule is going to be on this or if The judiciary who typically does not weigh into controversies involving our own House and Senate rules were come in and say what we know what your house rules says and we know what that Senate rules says but we don't like that that doesn't apply and typically those cases have been cited as home rule because it the judiciary recognizes that the legislative branch has power over its own rules so don't want to belabor that point but I just want to say that to say that it's such an appropriate context to view or to think about the idea of the legislature making rules for the judiciary the separate and equal an independent branch of government and so how this stands in contrast to some of the other proposals that have been offered. Some of the other proposals that you heard about allowing the legislature to to amend or modify or even create rules of pleading and practice and procedure is not how the federal government does it. Congress doesn't right Congress cannot write a rule of evidence or rule of procedure. But some of the bills that we have heard would allow the legislature to write the rule of evidence or rule of procedure this bill would not give the legislature the power to do that. This bill would give the legislature the power to review those and to accept them or reject them. Which is a separate thing from creating one or modifying one. And so that is one of the empty very important distinctions. We need to be very concerned from a separation of powers issue that as the legislature we would come in and tell the Judiciary. What they're rules that govern their courts are going to be and so very dangerous thing let me just you know give me an example. There are very specified rules of evidence that have been in place for hundreds of years in the United States and many of those developed from the English common law they came to the United States they developed through case law they've been codified in the rules of evidence and may have been standards for hundreds of years I'm talking about things like the rule on here say. the rules on the admissibility of all different types of evidence in our courts those are things that have developed over hundreds of years even from English common law until now. And if you change the the rules to allow the legislature to modify those the way that some proposals do you're turning those very well defined and established rules over to the power of special interest in in the legislative process who will be here advocating as you you all know as well as I do they will be here advocating for changes to those rules that will benefit them in particular proceedings and these are rules again that have been developed over hundreds of years when those rules change if they change. Because they govern the courts it should be the judiciary who changes on and if the judiciary changes on and and they do from time to time but it's through a very deliberate process that involves publication public input committees that review all of these things and then the Supreme Court ultimately will decide whether to adopt. Or not adopt that changing again that's after an extensive deliberative process where judges and attorneys and weigh in on it members of the public are given a chance to comment is put out for public comment that's the way it works now and it works well. But with what this bill would do would create a judicial conference made up of judges much much how it works today. Who would consider proposed rule changes they would submit those to the legislature for our review ultimately either for a straight up or down vote but it would not give the legislature the power again to amend modify or create which is a very dangerous thing that impedes upon. The judiciary's independence and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Committee members representative Payton recognized for a question thank you Mr so based on what you said. At the end of of this. Proposal this is the popular name shall be an amendment to the Arkansas constitution providing for the Supreme Court and General Assembly to adopt court rules. So that would seem to be misleading to me if you're not giving the General Assembly any authority to adopt just simply review. I thank you I think that's a good point you know if you keep reading adopt court rules in a similar manner provided in the federal rules enabling act so what I did was I took the federal rules enabling act and essentially made apply to state government and state process. But the word adopt is a little bit problematic I would agree with that just don't wanna give the wrong impression to the voters when they pass it I'd vote for I would agree with you about that I think. you know again it was supposed to be in such a way that would be similar to the federal rules enabling act in the in the way truly that Congress in the state and the US Supreme Court operate but well I would bet that the the average voter in Arkansas not familiar with that act I agree with you can I ask another question yes Sir okay so I have a hard time figuring out where these lines are supposed to be. I disagree with mandatory sentencing but the legislature. Sets those numbers for mandatory sentencing on a regular basis just the other day you had a a bill on the house floor I believe we passed it that said the court had to allow a photograph of the victim if the victim was deceased in the proceedings I mean is that not how's that not. US mandating their General rules of the trial. Well that's a good question and I think there's some important distinctions to be made one with the bill that you mentioned that I had it specifically said that that was subject to rule four oh three which is the court's ultimate balancing test for the admissibility of evidence so it preserve the right of a victim subject to. The Courts balancing of whether or not it would be appropriate because I knew that I didn't want to impede upon the courts and it would be challenged if we truly impeded upon the court's ability to control the evidence that's submitted at a trial it would also end also subject any other rules are low I think is what the bill said because it violated constitutional principles again the rules of evidence that already govern the admissibility of that evidence we can't impede upon that ultimately you know we can set forth in what I said was a substantive statement of victims rights that we believe that this should be. Allowed but ultimately that bill made that subject to the discretion of the courts with respect to the mandatory minimums and things like that. You're correct that we do that in a in a criminal context for purposes of punishment. but the criminal context is a little bit different than civil context I mean a criminal context you you have we have constitutional principles already in place that say you you can't have cruel and unusual punishment and if if the legislature didn't set some limits on that. A jury could impose you know cruel and unusual punishments and so we have a. We have a method where we we make those determinations but a civil case. Again I think the aims are different the aim of the criminal justice system depending on who you ask is to either a bill rehabilitate or to punish appropriately the aim of the civil justice system is to make it a victim or make a injured person whole. And so when you start trying to compare punishments in the in the criminal context which is you have to set an appropriate range of punishment for someone who has violated our criminal law. That's one thing when you look at what what what they try to do in the civil context the aim is different because the aim in the civil context is not to impose a punishment on a medical provider a nursing home a business who may be liable civilly but it should be to make sure that the victim as a victim or the the injured party who whoever it may be. Is appropriately compensated but will come in on civil both come under that third arm of third branch of government that we're lumping together. I'm not sure I understand what you have the legislative branch executive branch and the judicial branch coming criminal court in civil court both come under the judicial branch this is setting the rules for that I am on this understanding that. So I think. I think the distinction is the rules that we talk about are the rules that the courts used to operate so the rules of evidence or what the courts used to operate their courts civil and criminal civil and criminal okay the rules of that's different from punishments which is it what would be an appropriate punishment which is more of a substantive questions right I'm sorry I may got off track there but no that's fine I do have someone else in the queue waiting for a question so if you've got one and come back to you that I have one more okay. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you Mr president Gazaway you mentioned the federal rules of enabling Act house kind of following it up to that point but is my understanding you said that's what gives the court's authority to write the rules but the Congress not have to pass that to give them the authority. There is an interplay the heir. Clearly a between the courts and Congress there's appropriate checks and balances amid much like you know even with the emergency powers that we had today you know the governor has you might argue some inherent powers the executive with chief executive the state. To take control the state. But the legislature we do have delegated emergency powers to him that are clearly defined in the constitution and so I think you see a similar interplay here between the way the courts work and the way the legislature works and and you see that the federal level between again the Supreme Court Congress. I'm not sure that answers your question. Is there a oops representative I'm not sure that it does. Thank you I mean I guess I still believe that the the Congress will set that law in place that allowed the courts to do that or that's at least how it appears to me and. No I believe the Congress has been writing rules for courts ever since or the first session of. Well it so I know I would disagree I think the more specifically answer your question. The Supreme Court. Is the ultimate authority over the judicial branch and they write their own rules just like the house in the Senate right to its own legislative rules. to govern the the way the legislative branch works and so the I think that's really the distinction. Thank you represented the Dotson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair Just kind of follow along with what representative can go all insults just said obviously if it's an act it's passed by law of Congress and so kinda like. Madison said in federalist fifty one. the legislative authority necessarily predominates so it that that a forty to write the. Right the laws the courts have to follow those laws It is not necessarily in a completely. well separate branch is not independent branch of government it's there is a system of checks and balances in place in our or our federal system as well as in our state system and and I'm afraid that even if Congress has delegated that at the federal level into the. I'm not sure if this this tracks is actually with that act you say you you've set this up but I don't have that act in front of me and I haven't been had an opportunity to study this five pages of of tax that you you put here but it's a whole lot longer than US con constitutional amendment or article that set up the judicial branch of government so I think it's a little bit more expensive than what the federal judicial authority is constitutionally However. If we were to adopt this I have grave concerns that this would dramatically. Unbalance the system of checks and balances that we even have within the state currently and and of course I have the computing resolution to this that that actually does bring the judiciary anymore in check with the edge of the system of checks and balances but I guess my concern with this is if this were going to place There would be an up or down vote. On whatever the court wanted to do. With no input or say on the front end is just a yes or no. Is that what you're trying to do here yes. And and I will say it would not and I would take issue with. The the assertion that this would be worse than what we have now I mean to to make the Supreme Court come to the legislature and anytime they want to adopt the new rule and and put that before the legislature to review you know for comment on and either approval or rejection is a big deal that's not currently happening so you know to me is I think the distinction between where I'm at where you're at is where you draw that line I draw the line at approval or rejection you draw that line over here which is to say we can modify create rules of evidence and procedure and I think the appropriate check and the appropriate line is back this way not over here and I think that's just a fundamental genuine disagreement that we likely have. So would you would you say that If this were to pass you would be in favor of. Starting from a blank slate for all the rules in the judicial branch and then having each one of them come before the legislature for approval before they are enacted going forward. No and I don't think that's how the federal system works The my my recollection is that they submit them all to Congress at one time and then not there's a new one that comes that may come before Congress into separately but all those existing ones get submitted to Congress for approval or or not now Congress I think has historically always approve what the Supreme Court once you know they haven't thus far decided that they want to. Picked that fight with the other branch of government but you know that is an option I suppose under the way that the federal system currently works. Thank you. Okay representative Payton. Recognized thank you Mr chair so. If I'm a citizen and I vote for this and it passes. And I'm concerned with. Lobbying somebody to change the jury instructions and. Yeah I have fully inform juries who would I lobby. Well right now Yeah I think you you have if this bill passed you have two options number one the way the Supreme Court works currently with the way that it it promulgates rules are at that it writes its rules is that they put those out for public comment and so I mean you could do that now when the courts writing its rules on and they change the rules from time to time they put those up for public comment you have to watch the Supreme Court website no you know proposed rule changes and things but you have the ability right now to submit any comments that you have on a proposed Supreme Court rule change and that's one way that you could do it that's one way that you would do it at this bill passed the other thing is is when those rules are submitted the legislature for review and ultimately you know approval or rejection you can tell your legislature reject all those or reject the rules because I think they're bad so you know currently they don't submit their rules of the legislature. And so I think this is you know again if you're trying to strike an appropriate balance an appropriate check or balance this is a much more appropriate check or balance that allowing the legislature to write those rules because then. you're gonna have special interest involved in trying to write those rules and that's a very scary thing here the legislature so just to be clear that this is review and approve. Yes okay thank you thank you Mr. The sand of the questions from committee members is there anybody in the audience that will speak for against this. Amendment. Seven nine the Committee will. The with this being an amendment we can vote to adopt the amendment if you all would like to to do that and have had this amended into the bill or we could. Ms sorry I I'd probably should recognize that I apologize no that's fine this works when we had like that that's been a shell bill and and amended and or while. I have had an amendment to this degree a representative Ladyman you're recognized for motion. I have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed okay amendment has been adopted. Seven of engrossed in the bill Three no further questions we will move on to the next. Resolution house joint resolution one zero two four represent Gazaway that you again. What about ten twenty three oh I'm sorry yeah I'm I'm looking at the German Tosh is no tear and skip over yes ten point ten twenty three go ahead there should be an amendment on that one. Yeah I think it's already been handed out. So I have a motion to adopt the amendment all any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye opposed okay you may present your Amendment. Thank you Mr chairman. So. I think this is a very important. Issue for us to think about right now in the legislative session and given where we are as a nation. and in our state this would amend article two section five of the Arkansas constitution which set set forth the right of the people in Arkansas to keep and bear arms. And so it's essentially the article two section five of the Arkansas constitution is essentially the equivalent of the second amendment in the US constitution and I want to tell yet how article two section five as currently worded. Currently it simply states the citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms comma. For their common defense period. What a really odd number one way to state that you're the citizens of your state have the right to keep and bear arms. in addition to that it was brought to my attention there is apparently an old Supreme Court case that goes back to the eighteen hundreds where is this the name of the cases call buzzard versus state where the a justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court said that article two section five of the Arkansas constitution means that the people of the state have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of organizing a militia essentially for their common defense and they really you really emphasized on that for their common defense portion of article two section five. And what we need in Arkansas is a much more expensive statement of rights when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms then what what we currently have in the constitution and so my proposal on that you'll see this in the amendment recognizes a lot of the changes that we've seen at the federal level and it makes them applicable to the state of Arkansas it And it also adds several provisions I think that you know given where we are as a country and given the things that are happening make it very clear about where we stand in the State of Arkansas with respect to gun rights and. You know they say you have to make hay while the sun is shining and. I think that's where we are you know I don't know what this country's gonna look like in twenty years or thirty years and we have an opportunity right now with the legislature that we have been given kind of the I think the mood or the settlement of the citizens of the State of Arkansas to make what I think would be a very important Stangel change to our right to bear arms and so I think that we ought to do it but with that being said I want to state you know what I want to go through what the amendment says. So the amendment would make it very clear that the citizens of this state have a fundamental right now. It's important to classify the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right because fundamental rights been recognized by the US Supreme Court the Arkansas Supreme Court as requiring a strict scrutiny standard for there to be any restrictions placed on those rights and what is strict scrutiny that means that there has to be a compelling governmental interest. To to impose a restriction and that that compelling governmental interest has to be narrowly tailored to achieve those purposes and so when you state entity and it is for a fact but when you state that it's a fundamental right you're invoking that strict scrutiny analysis for any restrictions that would attempt to be placed on that right. It It again would go on to read the citizens of this state have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms ammunition and accessories typical to the normal function of the arms for the defense of their homes person's family and property and for the common and indivisible defense and that individual defense is also very important and for hunting and recreational purposes. Also I'll tell you that since most of that language that you see right there came out of a constitutional amendment that was passed in the state of Missouri in two thousand fourteen. about not just arms but what good are arms if you have no ammunition. And. What good is ammunition if you can't get the parts that you need for the normal functioning of your of your weapon. And so you know those those three things would be essential and then for what purpose for the defense of your home for the defense of your person family and property and then. We we expand upon what the only thing that the current constitution mentions the Arkansas constitution which is common defense to say common and individual defense and if you look at the federal case law that's developed for those of you that follow the second amendment you know the Heller decision at the United States Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that was a very important decision from the United States Supreme Court it did away with this militia argument idea to say that the right to keep and bear arms is one that you have as an individual and so again I think it's very important that we make that distinction Arkansas constitution that that's also an individual right and for hunting and recreational purposes hunting is already protected in the Arkansas constitution but would just make it doubly protected. The next part Deals with and and what some of this language came from the Missouri men as well the rights guaranteed by this section shall not be denied nor in French by the state of Arkansas or any political subdivision of the state of Arkansas so much like we see in the second member to the United States constitution shall not be infringed we're going to include that language which is currently not present in the Arkansas constitution in the Arkansas constitution the rights guaranteed by this section are unalienable and so it's important to note that the these rights are natural rights the rights to self defense the right to self preservation that's an unalienable right. then we continue any and all restrictions of the rights guaranteed by this section shall be subject to strict scrutiny and so that's implicit when we step say in the first section that it's fundamental but we want to make it very clear that if anyone tries to impose any restrictions on these rights that's going to have to meet the strict scrutiny standard and the state of Arkansas and all political subdivisions shall uphold and defend the rights guaranteed by this section and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement so we're making a very strong statement about being able to infringe upon those rights I think this is a substantial improvement from the one sentence that we currently have in the Arkansas constitution which proposes to protect our gun rights and again you've gotta make hay while the sun is shining the sun is shining in Arkansas right now I think that we ought to think seriously about doing this so happy to answer any questions. Representative to make sure recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman and representative I've knocked out like this one the question I have I think you've already answered this the rights that you have on here you would still allow the state to prohibit felons from carrying firearms or from being able to. Do not have this right thank you I just wanna make sure I'm I'm trying to play devil's advocate here no I think that's a great question. The Missouri constitutional amendment specifically said had included a statement about violent felons and the mentally infirm that sort of thing we can include that here this is one that the committee serious about adopting if that you know that's the will of the committee and people think that that's a good idea. I left it out I personally think that the state could justify those times restrictions even under strict scrutiny standard I think there's a compelling governmental interest for instance to keep violent felony firearms out of the hands of violent felons. But if it would help you know to pass the bill and to to clear those types of issues up for people who may have concerns that I think you know we would want to consider at that in I just wanna make sure that's not an unintended consequence of of what's trying to the follow up regulations is there any sort of definition on recreational purposes and again I'm playing devil's advocate you and I understand we're talking about she excluding sheet the state shooting the time change the subject like or there should be a lot about that or you know going to the range things like that but again could some crazy decide that you know my recreational purposes going to the mall and scaring people by waving a gun around pointing at people and and and so forth and then they can say well you know that's my That I think that you know again I think that's a good point I don't. You know it with any statement of rights you know you can't define every scenario in the world you know even if you look at the second amendment to the US constitution it's is very short you know it's been interpreted to mean obviously that you can't go You know shooting your weapon at the mall because you think that be fun all right so you know clearly they're going to be I think interpretations an existing interpretations things existing law that would prohibit that But I understand your point I'm just not sure that we can draft something in such a way that. That takes care of every scenario that one might imagine right right land again I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here I I general like this and and so far so thank you Mr. Thank you of represent Gazaway dot just carries. A lot of people here in Arkansas that considered felons but you're not allowed to care the farm because between ballot felons would you're with this particular Constitutional Amendment here how would that address that in any way the non violent felons. So the the current language I believe does not address that I doesn't address violent felons either we just you know there's no language in there about it period you know what I don't think that it would changing the existing law with respect to those things again if we needed to make a clarification I think that can be done But I think many of those things are going to be found to fall under those that a compelling governmental interest to regulate those and what would likely be upheld you know if they were challenged so. But it's a good question okay thank you senator protocol representative recognized. Thank you Mr chair at do you see if if for some reason you went and you included language about felons and that type stuff. Could you see a possibility of that being used to try to a road. Our rights that we have to keep and bear arms is is there someone that could be manipulated. Well I can tell you that they did it in the state of Missouri in the one that they passed and you know there's a current prohibition on felons carrying keeping or possessing firearms. So. You know for that you know for that specific purpose I don't really see that as an erosion of for law abiding citizens and again I would be happy to make that amendment that's something the committee would like to see language on Mister chair may I attempt to clarify my question a little bit so it is a little bit yeah go ahead what what I'm talking about is that if we say this was adopted and we actually. Got this change and I really like the language that you have the right now but in order to appease everybody that possibly could raise some type of problem about it and you include language about you know felons not being able to keep and bear you know that there restricted within the constitution could that provide a platform for the maybe the anti gun movement to be able to use since and and try to do more restriction that's that's really what I'm I'm looking for so I I think you make a fair point that you know could there be an attempt because once is in the constitution it's there and this Legislature may not look the same in twenty years or thirty years or fifty years and if more things become felonies for instance than what currently are now which the legislature has the ability to define could there there be some attempt there to scale back on that by defining certain things felony felonies yes and that and I don't know this because I didn't follow the Missouri debate on it but it might that may be wine the Missouri version they have specifically violent felons. as being prohibited because if you just made it all felons given how the future let you know future legislatures have the ability to find to define what is and what is not a felony could that be used initially to. restrict gun rights I would say that's a possibility. Thank you represent Gazaway thank you for your patience Mr thank you representative representative paid you're recognized. Thank you Mr president Gazaway is amended true that when somebody is convicted of a crime by jury that we take some of their fundamental rights especially when we lock him up Hang on VOL capital punishment I mean. We take those fundamental rights as punishment only. When somebody's convicted yes so even if this says it's a fundamental right the fact that somebody has committed a crime been prosecuted and found guilty of or we would have the authority to take that right wouldn't. Yes the you know the real purpose of death of stating fundamental right is to ensure that any restrictions get that strict scrutiny standard applied but yes your I mean when someone convicted of a felony they lose certain rights So yes thank you thank you Mr. Thank you saying no further questions from committee members. No one signed up to speak for against the representative Gazaway you have any closing remarks on is. I think it's a good bill I think is a substantial improvement from what is currently in our constitution I think now would be a prime time for us to consider something like this and we just ask the committee to consider and if you've got any suggested changes please let me know thank you we appreciate you bringing this bill before the committee and believe you're up next own House HJR ten twenty four. Yes are you ready to present it I am Mr with the chairs permission I'd ask that Mr **** be allowed to join me at the table. Okay so recognized. Thank you. This call a few word we all know you vote for the record would you identify yourself. ET I'll be glad to Mister chairman I'm Jerry **** and executive director of family counseling we're based here in Little Rock thank you so much thank you Sir representative you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. So H. J. R. ten twenty four would create the Arkansas religious freedom amendment. And basically this would be similar to what the state of Alabama recently passed it's also similar to the religious freedom restoration act and what we've seen that was passed at the federal level actually many years ago the real purpose is to again protect the free exercise of religion and to say that if government seeks to impose any restrictions on religion that it just like we discussed with the second amendment that is going to have to pass that strict scrutiny standard in other words there's going to have to be a compelling governmental interest and that compelling governmental interest is going to have to be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose whatever it may be and you know there are there are lots of provisions of this I think Mr **** can speak to probably better than I can but I just say just what this amendment just like we talked about with the other one. You have to make a while the sun is shining and I'm gonna just keep saying that we have you know very strong legislature right now I don't know what this legislature is going to look like in twenty years or thirty years and if you want to ensure that we have the freedoms that that I think we all hope to be able to enjoy you need to make sure that those are protected in the constitution and you need to make sure that they're protected now and so with that I would turn it over to Mr **** and allow him to get some additional explanation sure you're recognized but it's got thank you thank you Mr chair you know this this whole idea of government affirming religion religious freedom obviously is not new. But if you look at the history of this type of legislation you really go back to the Clinton administration back in the nineteen nineties within the federal religious freedom law was passed and actually president Clinton I believe sign that it back then it was believe or not back by the ACLU because they said everybody ought to have religious freedom and we all raise our hands that we agree with that I'm a Christian but if you're something else you all have freedom. And so this debate then has turned sideways over the years and by the time Arkansas got ready to pass the religious freedom restoration act in twenty fifteen all this all of a sudden it became a discrimination issue. Where some people said well if we let people have religious freedom they're gonna refuse to cater a wedding or bake a cake or they're going to refuse to allow somebody to be a worship pastor at a church or something like that but because of some disagreement over religious beliefs and sincerely held beliefs and all that you know about those debates and how that has all turned sideways and so. By the time we got to that point I I ask the ISU yes it how about helping us with religious freedom well no we're not for doing that anymore and that's how much things have changed represent Gazaway is absolutely right right now is the time to put bricks in the wall that you may not think are necessary because one day they will be I believe that and I'll I'll I'll say this the state of Alabama wrote almost identical this amendment into their constitution get this in nineteen ninety nine it's been there almost twenty well over twenty years and as far as I know there have been no adverse effects of this nobody has been treated poorly because of people having a religious freedom and all of that And so when when I look. At the people of Arkansas. If you ask them what freedom is it that they value the very most. I'll bet you a lot of them will go right past free speech and go straight to freedom of religion. And the right to worship as they see fit. And I'll tell you how the the differences are in people's world views. Back a few years ago of sitting over here in a committee waiting for a meeting to start and I was visiting with one of the attorneys with the ACLU. And that attorney looked at me to Jerry tell me something. What do you think you need more religious freedom. You all got a church on every corner. Why is it that you think you need more religious freedom. And here's what occurred to me. There are some people who believe that religious freedom means your ability to go sit in a church building and say a prayer sing a song and do stuff inside that church building. But my faith and I believe yours says go into all the world. And our faith is about going outside the walls of the church building and that's where people get real uneasy about it and that's when you start living out your faith in the public arena living it out in your business living it out in your community then people say well wait a minute we don't know if we like that freedom or not. I don't think we can wait for the federal government to protect our religious freedom I don't think we can wait for the federal courts to do it because the way they turn. Rulings inside out and suddenly say well yeah we used to read read that you have that freedom but not anymore. Even during the pandemic we've seen governments try to close down churches we've seen governments try to limit what churches can do and all kinds of ways if you look at states like California you know how restrictive things have been there fortunately we've not had that here. But this kind of amendment puts another brick in that wall to affirm what today for us is obvious but in the future may be something that people are grateful that we put it there and so that's why I think this would be well worth one of those three spots on the you know as far as amendments that are referred out to the people because if you were to ask our people do you think referred him or religion is important and needs to be protected that's absolutely absolutely it does. This chair thank you so much you know I appreciate you all stay in this latest you've stayed to hear all these amendments to that's just the way that we're not through yet Mr. Give me a little ways to go but Mister chair I may not be through either. Over and creation of representative Gonzalez to recognized by Mr Ferguson Gazaway you mentioned several times we gotta make hay while the sun shine in as you know the constitution limits the legislature's to how much a we can make so or what what do you recommend we we do here at all these constitutional amendments you've got filed. They have all. Happy to be partial to four I have so Yeah you know I think the the last one and this one that I presented obviously or both. a very worthy and you know I like all of them but I have been but I think the two that I presented just most recently are both very worthy I think that they would enjoy a lot of uh support among the public and I think we ought to seriously consider. Okay thank you representative saying no further questions from committee members I'm. Semin representative you've you have any. Further comments to make in regards to this particular. Amendment no Mr thank you okay Mr thank you thank you Mr **** we appreciate you hi moving on to the last one it's J. R. ten twenty five. The representative as well you're recognized to present your constitutional amendment. Thank you Mr chair. So this proposed constitutional amendment would stand in contrast to one that's already been presented to you today which is the a proposal that would allow the legislature to set caps on damages and I want to explain really what I think the distinction between my amendment and the amendment for the ability to cap damages is and primarily what I would referred to you as is what currently what we currently have in the constitution how long it's been there and why it's there. You can't really have this debate until you understand that and so I'd like to start their. first of all. The way our current constitution reads with respect to. The caps on damages and that's why every time these tort reform debates come up before the legislature they always come up in the form of constitutional amendments why because the constitution specifically prohibits the Arkansas constitution caps on damages and so again that's an article five section thirty two. which states that. that the General Assembly. I will not and I am. I'm somewhat paraphrasing here but basically I will not set a cap on damages resulting in it from injuries sustained in that the jury is the one that has the the power to determine in amounts of compensation and that's been in the Arkansas constitution since eighteen seventy four. Okay. That's been in the Arkansas constitution since eight eighteen seventy four. And number one I would just say. We need to think long and hard. Before we start changing that provision of the Arkansas constitution. That. Provision if you kind of look at the history of it that we made one exception to it over the years and so when you when you see these tort reform amendments filed you'll see that they say workers compensation and you always you may look at that you maybe like well what does that say worker's compensation are we talking about damages in a civil case well the reason is as workers comp is is because there's that general prohibition that there's no limitation on damages no caps on damages except according to what a jury may award. Except for we made one exception for the workers compensation system which was to say if you're an injured worker on the job you get hurt on your job. The workers compensation system is your exclusive remedy you can't sue your employer and put your employer out of business because you got hurt on the job you have to go through the workers compensation system which is a system that we specially created for those types of injuries beyond that the constitution still prohibits caps on damages. So then the question is why in eighteen seventy four did the folks who wrote the Arkansas constitution put language in to say that there would be no caps on damages and it's very similar to what we see today in eighteen seventy four it was the railroads who were moving through and work because in people's death and the railroads would give those who were injured or killed just a pittance for the fact that they maimed or killed your loved one and so when the framers the Arkansas constitution wrote this and it wasn't and largely in response to what was happening in that respect and you know what we see today is and I know people you know people don't want to believe it but what we see today is are you have billion dollar corporations. That you know headquartered in Delaware headquartered in Rhode Island they do business in the state of Arkansas and they don't care anything about you know they'd love to get this passed they would love for you to put limits on what can be awarded because then if if that multi billion dollar corporation puts out the product that hurts you if if one of their truck drivers runs you over in the course of business they know exactly the maximum of what it is they would have to pay to compensate your family and your surviving loved ones. before that injury and so yeah you would just become we would become a number in an actuary spreadsheet up for these billion dollar corporations that do business in the state of Arkansas. And so what this would say is it reaffirms the fact that there would be no cap on damages. And that. The jury is the Seoul has the sole authority to determine the amount of compensation owed for injuries resulting in death or or other injuries. And then it could it contains a provision that if we ever want to change that then it has to be changed by boat up by three fourths vote of the electors of the state so if you're going to change that provision let me say this if you're going to remove the old landmark that's existed since eighteen seventy four it better be by an overwhelming majority of the vote of the people I don't mean fifty percent plus one. It better be by an overwhelming vote of the people I think we would do well and we would be wise. To consider what the framers of our constitution road in eighteen seventy four and be very careful before we start **** nilly making changes to it and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you representative. Any questions from committee members. Saying none revision bill was signed up to speak for against the bill representative has really have any closing comments I'm close thank you Mr okay we'll appreciate you appear before the committee did a good job today thank you very much I do committee members thank you can't thank you enough for those of you that hung in here and stayed late I appreciate you so much no we got a lot of work done to date we'll meet again Wednesday afternoon we've got just a couple more Constitutional amendments to hear that should wrap it up and then we'll start the process of. Working it out so with that. Meeting is adjourned.