State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (46)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB469
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…we'll hold that. Yeah, I need more people for that one. so Senate Bill 469 is pretty, pretty simple. It just strikes 5000 and puts $10…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTY CAMPAIGN POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF … | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1637
Act 457
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “House Bill 1637, Mr. 1637. Introduce yourself and proceed. Uh, thank you, M…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE … | Ray | Notification that HB1637 is now Act 457 |
|
SB508
Act 756
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CE…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC … | Irvin | Notification that SB508 is now Act 756 |
|
HB1574
Act 453
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1574 is now Act 453 |
|
HB1693
Act 458
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1693 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD … | Hawk | Notification that HB1693 is now Act 458 |
|
HB1694
Act 996
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. | Hawk | Notification that HB1694 is now Act 996 |
|
HB1714
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER.”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. | Rose | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…IATED ACT 1 OF 1914. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB410
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. SB410 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMP…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT … | B. King | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB471
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB471. A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB479
Act 593
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DIVIDUALS APPLYING FOR LIFE INSURANCE WHO ARE ORGAN DONORS. SB479 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB479 is now Act 593 |
|
SB486
Act 955
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISTING A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY TO PRESENT IDENTIFICATION. SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIE…”
|
CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB486 is now Act 955 |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFIC…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
SB510
Act 594
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION. SB510 J. Boyd TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, C…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB510 is now Act 594 |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1352 is now Act 937 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE. HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1604 is now Act 943 |
|
HB1690
Act 583
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS. HB1690 Pilkington TO TRANSFER THE NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PR…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1690 is now Act 583 |
|
SB141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. Page 3 of 4 SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB247
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NT FOR FORMER STATE EMPLOYEES AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS. SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INITIATED MEASURES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB434
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB439
Act 737
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/19/2025 @ 4:39 PM) Added SB439 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB439 is now Act 737 |
|
SB44
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB453
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION AS AUTHORIZED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1. SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB468
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SB468 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FLUORIDATION OF A PUBL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM; AND TO ALLOWS VOTERS … | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB476
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB476 J. Scott TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STAT…”
|
TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB489
Act 950
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX. SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB489 is now Act 950 |
|
SB493
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB493 J. Bryant TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-R…”
|
TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-RELATED BOARDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB506
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RTS. HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. SB506 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO REPEAL THE EXEMPTION CONCERNING … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR11
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR17
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Ledi…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDMENTS. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR24
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 8
0:15
Not saying I'm OK, well, let's, let's skip on that. All right, um. There they are. Stand up, stand up. All right. We got this uh Eli Pridmore, Sylvan Hills High
School, Senator English, Trent Armstrong. Senator Hill Sidney Pippins whole high school. My grandmother's all matter, Senator Tucker and Adelaide Eman Beckman.
Mount Saint Mary, Senator Tucker, we're happy to have you all here
Speaker 8
0:57
today. Thank you. All right, let's see here. Senator Tucker, are you gonna run a couple of bills
for Senator Irvin, I believe. OK, just one, is that gonna be 4:39 or But 508, 50.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 508. This is fixing something that happened earlier this session, uh, if you look on page 1131 of the bill, the first bill wrote per month and it was intended to
say per meeting and it's just, just making that little tweak, that's it. It's on page 2 on 1
also. Oh, Simple enough. All right, members, any questions for Senator Tucker?
Speaker 27
2:27
Yeah You waiting for Waiting on you, sir. So if I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:42
That I'm, go ahead. This is something I'm this is
something I'm running for Senator Ir noncontroversial bill. OK, so, uh, don't like having my speak for against this, you recognize the close to your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a
good vote. Make a motion to pass a motion to pass by Senator Payton. Any discussion? See you nod all in favor. Say aye, a post. Congratulations bill passes. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:07
you. All right I will hereby pass over Senate Bill 398. So now we're
Speaker 36
3:10
there. I got to go back. All right, Senator Penzo. When
you say simple, noncontroversial, you know the chair's a little skeptical. OK That's like.
Yeah. All right, Senator, you're recognized to introduce yourself
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
3:34
and proceed with your bill. What bill are you running? Well, if I'm going to stick to my word, we're going to do 469. OK, 469 468 might be controversial, so we'll hold that. Yeah, I need more people for that one. so Senate Bill 469 is pretty, pretty simple. It just strikes 5000 and puts $10,000
Speaker 49
3:59
for adopt this amendment here real fast. members all this does is that
represent the baby of the house sponsor, so take a motion to adopt motion by Senator Dodson,
all in favor say aye. Podendment's been adopted. Senator, you're recognized to proceed with Senate Bill 469 as amended. Thank
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:15
you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so like I was saying, all this does is move the cap from $500 to $10,000 for a county committee contributions. Wow, I told you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:30
We'll see if it's not controversial. Is that what they're giving out or
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:35
what they're taking in? That's on the receiving end. That's the county can receive no more than 5000 right now. This moves it to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:43
where they can't, they can take 10,000 per
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:47
year from one person, one person, OK, thank you. Thank you. Constituent asked me to
Speaker 8
4:53
do this and I told him I would. Anybody else? All right, Senator Sullivan, where can
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
4:57
I just make sure I understand it so an individual
can donate, could donate 5, and now they can donate $10,000. That's correct. So some of these groups that have multiple packs, anybody that might have multiple PAC. It would be 10,000 per pack. Well, this is for a county political party, the county committees, but a PAC could donate. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, my fault. I'm sorry, a pack of don't if you have 5 packs, you could donate $50,000 to the county committee. Do
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
5:34
I guess, uh, I mean, I don't know if Clark. Senator Tucker could clarify on that.
Speaker 62
5:40
He probably knows more about that than I
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
5:42
do, but I mean essentially an individual, a pack is, and so they could donate. And we do have a number of groups that have multiple packs, OK, that's just my concern that we're giving a lot of power. To A group if I'm right, and I'm just waiting for someone to
confirm that and PAC is an individual, and PACs can now
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
6:10
donate $10,000 per pack. That's my assumption from any person. It doesn't say individual. It says the word is person, so I don't know, you know, uh, that's why I said Tucker can probably answer this better than I can because words do matter and to my understanding was it was See if you can as I trust the senator.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
6:35
I want to hear it from the Attorney General's office or someone or or or the uh folks that understand this. OK, I don't want to vote for it, and then it turns out that a PAC is a person or an
individual, and now we're giving a lot of money, to that group, so that's, that's my concern is because that's what's in the bill I appreciate your intent. You're an honest guy, not that you're ever wrong, but
I need to confirmation of that from officials. Senator Flippo, is there anybody here that could answers,
do you want to chime in? Thank you. I just I like to put it in context this way. The county committee is still limited. This does not change the amount that they can contribute to any single Uh candidate So Being able to funnel large amounts of money to a candidate is a problem.
But just like PAs, the county committee is limited on what they can give to any individual candidate, and this is not changing that. So I mean, basically, the county committee acts like a PAC or they could create their own pack, but what we, what we've traditionally tried to keep a tight rein on. is a large sum of money being able to be funneled to a single candidate.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:02
Does that make any sense? It does. My concern is if we have
county committees that um all of a sudden have a lot of money they can, they can support more candidates. Maybe not one candidate anymore, but now they can they can fund more candidates. I know there are a lot of committees around the state that aren't very well funded, and they can't afford to give $500 to any candidate, and now all of a sudden they're going to have um multiple packs if they have a motive, they're motivated to do that, but
storing a lot of money in those county committees, and I, my experience in the last couple of years is those County committees, uh. I'm not sure that I trust them to have that much money
funneling into elections. Well, I think we share some of the same concerns.
My concern is That individual could form 5 packs just as you alluded to, or 10, and each one of those packs could Put the maximum amount to one candidate.
So you have a single person ultimately going to a single candidate through multiple packs when it goes to a county committee, it's a group of people, quite a few people that have some very robust discussions and debates about who they're going to support. I think we're safer than we are whenever we allow one person to form multiple packs and then direct the maximum contribution to one candidate, but that's
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
9:36
just my opinion. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I'm debating, discussing. motion
to pass a motion, so I'll, I'm OK, yeah, we have emotional
Speaker 83
9:43
before though, Senator. Uh, Senator Tucker, we're gonna ask for a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:48
question. Thank you, Mr. Sharon. I'm just, I, I have the
definition pulled up and I'm not arguing with you. I don't have really a dog in the fight. I share some of your concerns and I, I share some of Senator Payton's perspective as well, but just for what it's worth, person in this code section that's Senator Penzo is amending, has a definition. So this term person has a definition. It's any individual
proprietorship firm partnership, joint venture, syndicate labor union business trust company corporation Association Committee, or any other organization or group of persons acting in concert, then it says it also includes a political party, a county political party and a legislative caucus committee. Elsewhere in this code section, there, there is a defined term for approved political action committee. prohibited political action committee. So I
I don't see a political action committee included in the definition of person just for what it just
again I'm not. Engaging in a debate on it, I'm just helping clarify for the sake of the discussion. Thanks,
Speaker 8
10:53
Senator. All right, members, any questions for Senator Penzo. Alright, sign up for questions, don't
have anybody to sign up to speak for or against this. Senator, you're recognized to close for
Speaker 88
11:05
your bill. Well, even when I think something's noncontroversial, it ends up being quit saying that,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
11:14
no, I mean, like I said, the constituent reached out to me and asked, he wanted to give more than $5000 to the county committee to help them out, so uh
I told him I'd run the bill for him, so I just asked for a good vote. Alright, members for the
explanation of the bill. There's closed. Do I see a motion. Motion to pass or Datsons, 2nd Senator Peyton. Any discussion on the motion? As amended a motion to do pass as amended,
second Senator Payton. Any discussion on that motion saying none. All in favor
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
11:50
say aye, opposed. Congratulations Bill passes. Thank you, and I'll, I'll hold
off on 469 just because I told somebody I made, I made all the amendments that were discussed on the floor, um, but I'm not gonna ask you about 468. I'm sorry, yeah, 468, um, just, just to talk about it real quick if the chair will allow me, and, but I don't want to ask for a
vote today because I told, told the opposition I wouldn't run it, um. But I made all the corrections that are a lot of the concerns that were made on the floor, I dressed in it and if y'all want to look at that, I'll, I'll come back and keep to my word that I wouldn't run it today, so thank you,
Senator. All right, Senator Johnson, you guys want to
Speaker 98
12:42
run? Where do you run, Oh, OK. I'll take Senator Mark, I'll do you go ahead, come on.
Is it noncontroversial That. All right. Where did she run in, Senator Johnson?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
13:12
House Bill 1637, Mr. 1637. Introduce yourself and proceed. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee, uh, House Bill 1637, uh,
is longer than it should be because it had to cover several different section and codes. Let me, let me just basically say what it does is it would require when a Initiative initiated or referred constitutional amendment was certified for the ballot, uh, well, I'm not sure which one comes first, but it would require DFNA to do a fiscal impact of the
Of the amendment and would also require that that summary and it's limited To I'm going to find the number of words, but it's limited to, I believe it's 100 words. I should have. I knew about 10 minutes ago I was going to be bringing this. Yes, the fiscal impact should not exceed 100 words plus 100 additional words per revenue source that's impacted by the fiscal impact statement, and
this would be on the ballot. So when a voter was faced with having to vote for or against initiated or referred measure. Then they would know to the best unbiased ability of DFNA to tell them what the cost would be and which taxes if it uh If it would affect a tax or tax would have to be raised or lowered. It could go both directions. It could have a positive fiscal impact, but that
this would be shown to the voters when they went to saw that on the ballot and certainly I hope they look at that before they get in the in the polling place, but that's, that's a summary of the bill. I'll try to answer any questions as far as the details of it, but, but the idea is that when we vote on different measures, we may have a A feeling in our heart about certain things, but then again in our brain we have to look at the cost as we're a balanced budget state, we have to look at the cost to our people and to
our budget on other matters, so this would basically share that information with the voters when they were asked to similarly vote on some kind of initiated or referred measure. All right, for an
explanation. got questions. Senator Payton, question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Johnson would
uh With the fiscal impact. be included on the ballot. Yes sir, and that's why I had to be limited to the and I think I noticed in
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
15:54
here that it's going to require fiscal impact on
anything referred by the legislature. It would, it would be both, it would be equal on those that were doing an initiative and
those of us that are referring on. So one of the measures that would come out of this committee or in the House committee referred to the voters, it would have, and it might be no fiscal impact. you know, some things don't aren't involving. money or but
it would be a good faith effort of DFNA to provide an unbiased fiscal impact, OK,
so, so one more question, um, Do you know whether or not a fiscal impact, say if we're, if we have a bond measure. And issuing $500 million worth of bonds with the fiscal impact
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:44
reflect 500 million or all of the
finance costs with that. Senator, that's an excellent question, and I'm not quite sure now DFNA could probably separate those and answer that question fairly succinctly because I
would just, I would prefer that, that when we talk about bond measures that we talk about the true costs
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
17:08
instead of just the principal. Well, let me, let me clarify, Senator, I'm not so sure that the measures such as we debated on the floor yesterday about what basically $500 million of water and sewer bonds. That's referred to the voters, but I don't think it's a constitutional amendment or an initiated act, so it might not apply in that case simply because now they can look and
say this is $500 worth of bonds that in this bill if you I would have never thought about that. I'm uh the fact is that when you've got something on the ballot that says $500 million people can kind of understand that, but when you've got something that doesn't mention funding. One way or the other at all, then we want to be able to Get the kind of answers that you and I would get when we're we're I think this is a great bill and a great.
Idea, but wouldn't you agree that when it's
better to give them no figure than a false figure. So if we have a 500 million bond project, they're going to look at 500 million and think that's the cost when the true cost. could
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:20
be 20 or 30% above that. Well, Senator generally, and I can't speak for every bond issue and it's yesterday in the debate I discussed even with you the difference between a general obligation and revenue bond, but
the fact of the matter is usually on bond issues the proceeds from the bonds pay the bond council and the underwriter and those costs are covered out of the proceeds of the bond issue. So if it's $500 million that's What it would be. Now, another thing is oftentimes you don't know the interest rate until you go to the market. So you go down and get all these other things done. The underwriter puts it together. It goes to the market. The rate could vary and actually, you know, there are
cases I'm aware of and you probably can think of some too where the entity that was going forward with the bond issue withdrew it, decided not to do it because of the interest rate environment and that wouldn't change, but I would, I would think we may have strayed. A long way from this I know that, but the point is that to the extent possible, DFNA could give a good faith estimate that people who would walk in and say, well, gosh, what does this measure cost me as a taxpayer or
perhaps even benefit them as a taxpayer. It could have some, you know, a positive impacts on things then, but they would have at least to the extent possible, a better education on what they were voting on. Thank you. Thank you. questions from the committee. All right, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a similar
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:54
line of questioning that Senator Peyton just asked, and the way I was going to phrase it is we know that DFNA. They're they're scoring is static, not dynamic.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:10
And congressional I think we've tried to work on fixing that since I've been in the Senate, Senator Tucker, but I'm not, I don't, but I agree with you. In the past, that's been one of my criticisms as well
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:21
like in in in US Congress they have dynamic scoring because it shows not only how much it's going to cost, but whatever the. The other aspects that might be impacted by what you're proposing, right? And so I, I think that's a different way of saying the same thing that Senator Payton was saying is that when you just have the one
static number, it's not really telling the whole picture. And I think as legislators, we understand that. I'm not sure if someone who's who is not familiar with the the FNA's physical impact statements in the way that we are, and they walk into a ballot. they see this fiscal impact statement. It's the first time I've ever seen something like that. That it might, it might
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
21:02
be a bit misleading for them. I perfectly understand the point you're making, and I would even agree with you to a point because I've in the past have felt that DFNA
scoring was, was, and I will not want to say biased, but as you said, it's static. It doesn't, for example, if you, you cut a certain tax, they'll say, well, it costs the amount of revenue we received last year from that tax. It doesn't talk about some new economic activity that might be gene. from it, uh, but to the extent that they can do this in the period of my time. I think that, you know, and again, anyone that's that's sponsoring an example of an
initiated measure would would have to explain that, say, well, and some of y'all may remember, and I won't go down this too far, but I had a bill a few years ago that passed that we took the sales tax off of gold bullion and collector coins, but In part and the revenue loss was like 200-300,000 dollars seems like, but what we didn't mention that it would now allow Arkansas to get coin and Corn shows and other things that had avoided our state, so that
it would create new economic activity which might be hard to say how much more that would be, but, but in the static revenue loss, you know, I had to stipulate to that, but I tried to make the point in trying to convince my colleagues to vote for it that it would actually probably have some net value to the state as far as tourism and other activities. So when you're making that argument on the floor
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:37
to your colleagues. Right? But right as they're voting on the measure.
I will be glad to try to do that. I'm just, no, that's not my question. My question is, in the example that you just gave. You had a and I'm not being critical of DFNA because they, they do the job that we've asked them to do. If there's any criticism, if we'ren't happy with what they're doing, that's on us, not on them, because they're doing what
we ask them to do. But And the example you gave, you had a fiscal impact that measured the revenue loss only, but not the potential benefits of what you were advocating for. That's correct. And so and and the example that you cited, it
was up to you to convince your colleagues that the benefit that the pros outweigh the cons, right? And you, you made that case to your colleagues on the floor of the Senate as they were voting on it. And is there a similar opportunity for ballot measure sponsors to make that case with The public as as they cast their votes in the same way that there is in the legislature.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
23:42
It wouldn't be necessarily in this, although let me say that we have come a long way with
getting DFNA to look at a more dynamic analysis of the measures because we want to know as as legislators what the real long term effect, not just a static number based on what last year's revenues on that particular tax work, for example, uh, that's not perfect. It's a process. Your your question is, is on, and I agree, and I would hope that they could put in their their statement again, the 100 words of what it would be
not just a number that's going to cost this much or it's going to get this much in new revenue, but actually would be able to Uh Implemented in a manner that would take to the extent possible and it might even be an explanatory note that this doesn't take into consideration additional economic activity generated DFNA is is good with this and say they can implement it, and I
think it'd be nothing to keep us from continuing to improve this and even for our own use, give them the tools and funding they need to give us some economic estimates that were a little bit more
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:06
dynamic. Sometimes there are ballot measures that require the legislature to pass laws to implement them. So how
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
25:12
would this work in that context? Well, the bill kind of speaks for itself. Let me, uh, uh, Let me, let me read from it if I could, Senator.
It says that the referral to DFNA. I'm sorry, my phone keeps skipping to the next page without me wanting. It says that uh a description of the total estimated fiscal impact over the time period or time periods determined by the department to be most useful in understanding the estimated fiscal impact. If the proposed measure would increase taxes, decrease taxes, or impose a new tax, a dollar amount representing the total estimated.
increase or decrease for each tax affected under the proposed measure, uh, a dollar amount showing the estimated amount of new tax or dollar amount representing the total estimated increase or decrease in taxes. If the proposed measure would result in issuance or a change in the status of bonds, notes, or other debt instruments, a dollar amount representing the total estimated increase or decrease in public debt under the proposed law. Uh, and it also would, it said a
concise description analysis entitled Funding Source not to exceed 100 words for each funding source, so once they've reached the dollar amount in general, it would also say how it would impact a specific funding source that's identified. OK. And if I could add one thing, Senator. It also says that if they can't determine this, they can say in their statement, we can't completely determine this. That's in the bill. That's in
Speaker 98
27:20
the bill. That's in the bill. Yes, sir. Alright, no further questions. We do have somebody sign up to
Speaker 136
27:41
speak against this. Kwame Dubey. Yeahdu yourself here was for the record, and then you'd
Speaker 139
27:46
be recognized proceed. Hi, I'm Kwame Abdul Bay. I am
the campaign, the campaign manager for for our Kids BQC. Excuse, excuse me, um. I am against this bill and I represent 3 other organizations who have flipped and are now against this bill. They were originally leaning towards being 4th for the bill, and I'm going to tell you why we changed. Uh When the bill was originally
filed, uh, we thought that As it was written, it was a good idea, but it needed some amendments, so we reached out to the sponsor of the bill, uh, Representative David Ray to discuss what we believe would be some really good amendments that would make it a totally uniform. Uh, process and that would make it beneficial to the voters. Um, and I'm going to tell you
the things that we suggested to him for amendments. Let me pull it up. All right. So the first, one of the first things is what Senator Tucker just said, we are definitely talked about the importance of the fiscal impact statement being something that had a like a 25 year cost-benefit analysis where you're not only talking about the uh fiscal impact, but the social. impact as well. Uh, when that
was mentioned to uh the sponsor, the sponsor totally disagreed with that analysis and said that uh fiscal, the static impacts, physical impact statement, it's all that's needed, uh, so that was shot down as far as one of the suggested amendments. Uh, another suggested amendment that We, uh, suggested was if you look at line page 2 line.
Page 2 lines 16. Page 2 lines 16 does something differently from the legislatively referred amendments in the Constitution, the citizen initiated amendments. What it does is it gives the Attorney General the right to determine whether or not a fiscal impact statement is required for the citizen initiated measures and what we what we asked is that that
language be stricken. And that, uh, DFA be the sole uh body to determine whether or not uh those fiscal impact statements are necessary and keep it out of a political uh uh hand to make that determination. Uh, he said that that actually seemed fair and was a great idea, however, he did not amend
it, as he said that he was going to consider doing it. Uh, the next, uh, amendment
that we suggested. is we suggested that if you speak to this, your core objection to this bill and not the
Speaker 139
31:15
back and forth conversations with your organization Representative Ray I'm speaking to my objections. My objections is that the Attorney General has the authority in this bill as it's written to determine whether or not the citizen
initiated measures will receive a fiscal impact statement. We believe that The Attorney General needs to be taken out of that determination and that determination needs to be made solely for DFA. That, that's, that's very clear. Uh, as far as what Senator Tucker was saying. We, we, that's, that's another area that we're concerned about is that the uh fiscal impact statement needs to have a long term uh dynamic cost
benefit analysis that is not in this bill, and we would, we want you to vote against it because it's not in this bill, uh, The other, the other thing is that the way that it's written, the cost-benefit analysis would be on the ballot, and what that would do is that would increase the cost for printing ballots for our 75 counties and what we suggested is since there's another bill going through the legislature to create a website
on the Secretary of State's website, a page on the Secretary of State's website to put ballot initiatives on there that, that this fiscal impact statement be put on that website instead of being put on the ballot, uh, so as not to, uh, you know, create. Basically confusion from the electorate when they're at the ballot box, and that also gives an opportunity for uh any organization that may disagree with the fiscal impact statement
to put their put their objections and their disagreements on the website because it would not be allowed to be on the ballot as it's written. So for those reasons, we are against this, and we ask that you vote against this and Uh, uh, if it's amended, we would definitely reconsider our objections. Thank you very much, members. Are any questions the committee? All right,
Speaker 145
33:27
see you then. Thank you for being here, sir. All right,
Chair
Unverified
33:31
Senator Johnson, you were recognized to close for
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
33:35
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. gentleman, uh, Let me, let me point out the gentleman is correct that the Attorney general would be making the that referral to the FNA. However, The Attorney General is already charged under the law with much constitutional, much responsibility for certifying a ballot measures. This is why he it would be a waste of everybody's time if some ballot
measure didn't meet those other requirements to then turn and ask DFNA to have to do a fiscal impact on something that hadn't. Passed the first couple of tests to move forward, so yes, they're they're uh it would, it, it is a separate group and yes, the Attorney General sends it, but the Attorney general has to deal with every initiated measure in the case of something that's a referred measure that we
refer, it just goes straight to DFNA, so it's, it's basically a multi-tiered process, and I think that to the extent that We can come up with something that does things in the regular order. We want to make sure that that as it is finalized is what DFNA uses to make their fiscal analysis on. I'm grateful to the committee for hearing this, and I think this is just We like to have information when we sit in committee and on the
floor and make decisions, and this to the extent possible, extends that same information to a voter who wants to be a more informed voter, and so I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
All right, members got a motion to be passed by Senator Sullivan. Let's see a second. Seconded
by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion, Sarah Tucker recognized for discussion. Thank you, I'll be
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:29
brief. I think providing information with voters is generally a good idea. I'm supportive of that notion, but it's not
an apples to apples comparison with the fiscal
impact statements we review in the legislature with a member of the public who's never seen a fiscal impact statement before. When we're running a bill, we're we're speaking with the entire electorate at the moment they're going to vote, whether it's in a committee or on the floor. That's just not the case with a with a ballot measure where there's going to be hundreds of thousands or upwards of a million voters, and as Mr. Abdul Bay said, Having the information the public discussion on a website, I think is a good thing. Having it on the ballot is a step too far, and when it may very well be misleading. I mean, there have been times when I've had
bills that I thought the fiscal impact was very misleading because it was static and not dynamic, but again, I can communicate with the entire electorate about my position about the fiscal impact statement as they're voting on legislation, so I'm for educating voters, but I think doing it this way is not the best way to do it, so I'll be voting now. All
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:33
right Senator Hammer recognized for discussion. Thank you discussion to the motion. The one thing I
would like to point out is that As we've seen in past initiatives, there is a cost with everything that is done and that if we can be transparent in allowing people to know exactly what it is that they are voting for, not only in content but also in cost. I don't think that that's a bad thing, and this is an avenue to
provide that to people, so I think it would be a good thing for
it. Thank you. Thank you. Any more discussion, see none. All in favor say aye. opposed? All right, didn't hear 5 votes.
Speaker 158
37:11
Sorry, your bill fails. Alright, I, uh, Roll
Speaker 161
37:29
call. All right, roll. Senator Clark, Senator Clark, yes. Senator Hammer, Senator Hammer, yes. Senator Sullivan, Senator Sullivan, yes.
Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker? No. Senator King, Senator King, yes. Senator Dotson, Senator Dodson, yes. Senator Peyton, Senator Payton, no. No, it's
Speaker 158
37:56
fine. All right, 5 votes. Bill passes. Thank
Speaker 166
38:04
you. your area No, everybody's got to say yes at that time, you know, Quiet doesn't count.
OK very hard, Senator Clark. All right, next up we're going to have Senator Blake Johnson or Sir Kroll, I guess Blake's left. Where are you running, Steve
Speaker 170
38:33
1694. Senator Steve Kroll District 3. Everybody got it.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
38:43
This is uh Secretary of State's bill. It just is requiring everybody to do electronic filing for their campaign contributions and expense reports right now we have 5 people that are not doing it after this cycle 3 will be gone. 1 of the two there left was a freshman, didn't know he could do it online. The other one is not going to change, but he can take it to the Secretary of State's office and scan it in the kiosk that will be in there. They just to streamline everything, um.
So that they don't have to have so much, so many staff dedicated to this. I will try
and answer any questions. Members, any questions from the committee? Yes, and what's the number 6941694, sir. Yes, this. Does what now requires them to uh file
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
39:31
their campaign finance reports online. Have they fixed their software? Yes, and in fact in here it says that they they're They've got to have it better. You know, I'm paying somebody
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
39:46
$50 an hour right now and it's getting real expensive that says they haven't fixed their software. I had a bill 4 years ago to require them, and they asked me not to run it because they were going to get it fixed, but I'm told it's in the same mess it's always been in because we would very much like to file electronically, uh, but it's, but we can't get it done. I've had, my wife has quit, my uh my treasure, who's a CPA has quit, a friend who is a retired financial
controller for a big corporation has quit and all of them have listed the same things and so they'd be glad to work with the Secretary of State to tell them what's wrong. Uh, but until they fix that, Uh I don't know what, I don't know what to do, uh, I mean, my, my wife has been in tears after spending multiple hours and it won't balance, uh, because their software doesn't work right. If somebody's here to tell us different, I'd love to hear them.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
40:46
I don't think there is. I just I know the new system seems to work
good for me personally, but that's the new system that they
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:55
just got up this last year. Senator Johnson's daughters told me it doesn't. No, it's great.
Speaker 120
41:05
All right, any other questions? Senator Hammer. Oh,
Speaker 186
41:16
thank you. Yeah, so I mean we're gonna hammer then,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:20
yeah, yeah, mine will be quick. I was thinking. We've, we've already passed in law for this
to be done, correct? Correct. These are punitive action associated with years that makes it different or no we have not passed a law that you have to do it electronically, no. This will be
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
41:36
the first time that we have. What? Oh, I thought we did
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:42
have a, I thought we did like 3
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:47
sessions ago. We did, but, but you have an alternative that if you uh it's the cause of software didn't work. We, we came back and amended it with an alternative that you didn't
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
41:58
have to. And this also has the kiosk. They're having some kiosks downstairs so you can scan it in. And That way it makes a paperless. OK, OK.
Speaker 3
42:08
Thank you. Alright, thank you. Uh, Senator King and Senator Dodson. Senator King,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
42:21
OK, so my wife says I'm 56 going on 86 when it
comes to technology, and I agree with that. And it's like I tell people, if I had to press a button of like
accept a new technology and adapt my life and everything, or another button to end all humanity, I would
suggest finding a hole somewhere, but, and if you come out and there's Willie Nelson and Keith Richards and Bugs, you've made it, but so like this system, the system that was in when I first we started started electronic worked far better than this system today. And then on debt retirement, you, they still have not, to my
knowledge, got that updated where it has to be in written form. So this is, this is just campaign not debt retirement. It's because last time I filed in debt retirement, they have to To, uh, you have to do it written because they don't
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
43:10
have the system software updated to do debt retirement in electronic. I mean what it says is the Secretary of State shall develop electronic reporting forms, campaign contribution expansion reports requiring including without limitations, the cover
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
43:24
sheet, the contribution and the expenditures. OK, so not debt return. OK, well, I mean, I, I don't have a problem with electronic, but when they have a horrible system. It's like very hard to to just shut that off to that even
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
43:42
though I file electronically, so. Right, Senator Dodson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I mean, just historically speaking, we've done this once before and then had to come back in the next session and uh create the alternative that you
see before us because There were a lot of problems with with the system. I know we've updated the system since then and it's less bad than it was before, um, I mean, I file electronically and, and uh still sometimes struggle with certain aspects of it, and it's It's A system that continuously needs some improvement to it. Um, but maintaining the, the electronic or the alternative option for some people, which is
Speaker 207
44:25
very few right do that, um. I, I, I think it's necessary, so I, I'm not supportive of this. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:34
you. Thank you, Tucker. This is all state candidates.
That's what a state and district. OK. And what is this, what is this,
Speaker 210
44:43
what are district, who are district candidates? Good question. I just took it from
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:47
just trying to figure out so obviously I know it's legislators, it'll be constitution people run for constitutional office. I assume people running for for circuit court judge and prosecuting
attorney, but I just, I'm just curious who else it would apply
Speaker 212
45:01
to, so I don't know, yeah, OK, thanks. Thank you. Any
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
45:03
other questions from the committee? Sarah Clark. Sir, we want to file electronically. We just want it to work right. How about I have this idea? How
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
45:13
about I make sure they come with me. I represent this so you guys can get some teeth into. That'd be a great idea. Sounds good. I'm going to
pull it down then. I was holding mine for a discussion on motion.
So here's the thing. I don't remember, it was early on in my first term or two when when we created the electronic filing, but from the very first month it was available, I've used it. I've gotten along great with it. Everybody complained about the last system not working. I didn't have trouble with the only part I ever had trouble with was the carry forward to the next campaign. But they decided that they were going to change to a new program.
Well, praise God, I haven't had any trouble with the new program either. But there's got to be an alternative. To it because in my businesses, you know, about 1992, we converted the auto auction to electronic, you know, on computers. But I didn't give up the ability to track things on paper. Our checking accounts are electronic, but we still have a, a checkbook, you know, we're still gonna keep track of it on paper. We have receipts. And,
and I just I totally disagree with eliminating the alternative for any reason. There should always be an alternative for when the system is broke or when the system has been changed and somebody doesn't understand it, these Filings have deadlines. And when you're sitting at home on a Saturday or Sunday night. Doing your electronic filing. And the deadline is midnight or the next day.
And all of a sudden you can't get along with the system whether it's the system's fault or your fault. You need to be
able to fax it in or whatever and and do the alternative, so I can't support not having
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
47:14
an alternative. I think there's an alternative. I'm actually trying to read it, but there's an alternative where they set the kiosk downstairs so you can scan them in, you're at the Capitol, and I agree with you. So I think I, I think if you're OK with it, I'd pull it down. I want to bring them back so that you guys can
get some teeth in this. That sounds good to y'all if you'll allow that. Alright, thank y'all. Appreciate you not doing that before he came to
Speaker 8
47:41
committee, Senator Kroll Really enjoyed the conversation. All right, so we go next, our hammer. Let's see. You've got 2 bills
Speaker 222
47:46
you're running. Yeah, I, I just wishful thinking on my part. All right, let's start with House Bill 1574.
Yeah. Inser if you. I'll let you get your bill ready and then introduce
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:21
yourself and you'll be recognized to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is to clarify the definition of domicile versus an individual that is a resident. This came out in a previous meeting where
it was actually stated by someone giving testimony that this needed to be clarified and cleared up because of the gray area, so what the bill does is clarify who is a Who is domiciled or the definition of domiciled and also the definition of resident, and that's what the bill does. All right, I
Speaker 227
48:53
heard an explanation or any questions from members
of the committee. Alright, see no questions. We do.
But don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Yeah,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:10
not seen it. All right, Senator Henry, close to your bill. Thank you. We're just bringing clarity to what was otherwise confusing terminology, and I'd appreciate a
good vote and I'll make a motion to pass. All right, got a motion to pass Senator Hamburger. Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on
the motion see none. All in favor say aye, opposed. All right, congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Next
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:29
up we'll do House Bill 16931693. Could I get Chris with the election board.
yours long. years long. Yeah, I, Kim, would you like hammer if we just like let Senator Johnson go? He's got, he's chairing commerce real quickly. Yeah, no, it
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:48
doesn't bother me a bit. Alright, thank you for the courtesy. All right, Senator Johnson. Oh.
Speaker 240
50:10
I have someone to come to the table. And what are you running, Senator Johnson? Senate Bill
Speaker 239
50:32
486 486 members. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21, uh. Sara
Speaker 244
50:37
Beth Nolan, I serve as legal counsel with the Alliance
Speaker 245
50:41
Defending Freedom here for questions. Senate Bill 486, uh, protects the physical privacy and safety of women and men in shelters, state and local correctional facilities and all public buildings operated by government entity. It applies to all public buildings, restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, shower rooms, and. Rooms, uh, for overnight stay. The bill defines sex and also shelters and correctional facilities, governmental
entities may make reasonable accommodations for a person by providing single occupancy or family restroom changing room and sleeping quarters. The bill also allows for a civil cause of action if if these things are not done. I'd appreciate a good vote. Our members who've heard an explanation of the bill, any questions from
the committee, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 248
51:35
Well, so we heard what the bill does. Why are we doing it? Well
Speaker 245
51:45
I wish we didn't have to do things like this and people knew what bathroom to go to and where to
Speaker 249
51:52
sleep and how to stay separated, but In today's age, we just got to do those things now.
Speaker 245
51:57
So is there a pervasive problem with this that happening, you know, I think there's a societal issue that that we have to uh to For the safety
Speaker 249
52:05
of our citizens have to make sure that those things happen. You got any examples that you can share with the committee, examples of what we're trying to stop with this
Speaker 245
52:17
bill. Well, I mean, there's examples of men being in women's restrooms and women playing in in sports and you got to make accommodations and and these things have but
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
52:28
have to be, uh, have to be dealt with in Arkansas, where, where does this happen in Arkansas? I don't care. It ain't going to happen. That's why we're doing it, OK, uh, what is a congenital anomaly. Well, I mean, not all things are
Speaker 245
52:47
normal and, and the sexual reproduction and and whenever we're born. Those congenital nominees can happen in
Speaker 249
52:55
your DNA, but they are our classified in science. It's either male or female. OK.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:02
What is, uh, an intentional or unintentional disruption of the reproductive system. Well, that could happen through in an
Speaker 245
53:10
accident where where those are separated or it could happen by surgery.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:22
OK. Accident being unintentional, surgery being intentional, I take it. OK. Uh, section 2 of the bill, what is
a shelter? It's not, I don't see where it's defined in
Speaker 263
53:41
the bill. I believe that the the intent is to address domestic violence shelters, but, um, there should be a definition
Speaker 244
53:52
don't, I don't see it in there. No, you're correct. There's, there's not, but it should, there should be one, right after 7 there
Speaker 265
53:59
in the first section. OK. I think it would be
Speaker 245
54:04
good to good to have that in there, um. I mean, I mean, it allows for emergency situations where, you know, if if a city has a shelter, those, you know, in an emergency situations, there's things that you can't do, but
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
54:22
the shelter is generally understood. There's several places in the bill like Section 3, for example, is only for state correctional facilities, yeah, and there's a section for local. Uh, but we have sovereign immunity in Arkansas, and there's a provision where Not, not where the the person can sue the person who is not in the bathroom that's been designated for them, but
Speaker 266
54:52
they sue the prison. And so how can that be with sovereign immunity? I, I
Speaker 245
54:59
think you're, I think that accommodation. Should be done by, by law and if and if it's not done by our state and local facilities, then then it allows for that
Speaker 23
55:08
correction. I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm not following what you
Speaker 245
55:11
just said. This allows them to be sued, and I run it through the executive branch and attorneys to see if they had heartburn in that case, and they don't. Well, it's not,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
55:24
it's not a policy heartburn issue. It's a constitutional issue. I don't think we should have sovereign immunity, and we've we've had proposed constitutional amendments in this committee to change the sovereign immunity in Arkansas, but it's in the state constitution that the state can't be sued, so Whether we have heartburn about it or not, it just, it can't be done under the current state of the state constitution. So
Speaker 239
55:44
I just I think the process would be possible claims commission or something to go before us if it's if it's not a court of law.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
55:55
And so, and you know, in other bills that we've seen where people can file claims
against the state. It's it's laid out specifically that you go to the Claims commission and what the process for that is, you know, I don't,
I don't see that in here either. Um Right now under the law without
this bill. If a person Goes into a bathroom, for example, uh, and they're Members of the opposite sex
or members of the same sex, and they expose themselves. That's a
Speaker 266
56:25
crime under Arkansas law now currently, correct? Yeah, we, we've done, we've
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
56:32
done that in the last few years also, I think that's been a crime for a long time. Uh, since before I was born and If you go into a bathroom right now or a shelter or a sleeping facility, whether you remember the same sex or the opposite sex, and you do uh something uh physically to another person against their will,
that's also a crime under current law without this bill, correct?
Speaker 84
56:57
All right. Thank you. All right, Senator Hammer and Senator Sullivan. Senator
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:01
Hammer, we're going to ask for a question. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Let me ask you something. Do you think it's better to prevent something from happening or
react to something that has happened if it causes emotional physical harm to somebody. As a matter of public safety, I think it's to prevent. OK, and I'm sorry, I did not hear
Speaker 244
57:21
your name and who you're with, please. Sarah Beth
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:23
Nolan, I'm with Alliance Defending Freedom.lan defending freedom.
Speaker 244
57:28
Have you vetted this as far as constitutionality. Yes, sir, I have. Has this been run in another state somewhere? It has been challenged in another state somewhere. It has has it upheld been upheld federal courts have upheld this, and,
Speaker 194
57:49
and this is patterned after what is already on the books for public K through 12
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:53
in the state of Arkansas. OK, so outside of outside of Senator Johnson direct this to you outside of any philosophical difference as
far as what this bill does or does not do. as far as being held up by the Constitution challenge that it's faced in other states, the content in this is equal to those other areas where it's been challenged and successfully upheld. Is that correct? Absolutely. OK, so then let's take it down to the argument of do we want boys and girls' bathrooms, or do we want girls and boys' bathrooms. What's the intent of the bill as far as sheltering individuals so that
they do not have anyone who is a a member of the opposite sex in the areas that are are in here. That's
Speaker 156
58:36
what it does. OK, thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Uh,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
58:42
sir, Clark. Senator Johnson, would it surprise you that in a quick internet search, I found numerous cases, uh, that would be covered by this bill across the country. That would be, uh, that would be
Speaker 239
58:59
great if, if you would just, uh, name, you know, for Senator Tucker, it would be. The uh
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
59:07
Let me go back. I've sent them to everybody else. Trans woman wins settlement from Jim that refused her use of a women's locker room. Uh
Speaker 245
59:29
That's comes out of En, California. Is that good enough? That's good enough. This is these protections is in there's North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, we have done something, you know, previously, I, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota has addressed it in two different sessions, Florida, Virginia, Utah, Alabama again, uh, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming, and also Kentucky again.
These, uh, these protections have been afforded in other states. All right. Any other questions? Say no
Speaker 52
1:00:09
more. Do you have somebody sign up to speak. See here. Dr. Cho, we'll start
Speaker 98
1:00:14
with you. It's time to speak against. Um Sorry. OK, OK, I've got your own building that not no. Tian Esel
Just walk around here. All right, if you just have a seat and introduce yourself
Speaker 291
1:00:58
and tell us here whether to represent yourself and you'd be recognized proceed. Hello, my name is 10 Estelle, and I am the policy coordinator for intransitive. We are a Little Rock-based nonprofit who served trans people in Little Rock and all over the state, and I'm here today because I very strongly oppose SB 486, the
Speaker 292
1:01:17
anti-trans bill that encourages lawsuits against the state when people think they are sharing certain bathrooms, changing facilities, and shared or forced housing with transgender people. This bill is actually fear mongering, dangerous, discriminatory and an unnecessary financial burden on our state. And I know that a lot of you don't agree with this, but trans women seeking shelter should not be forced to reside with men or sleeping rooms assigned to men.
This bill allows people to sue the state if they are housed with trans people, which encourages state sponsored shelters and other facilities to either deny service to trans women or force them into dangerous housing situations. Shelters for unhoused people often. already refused to serve trans people, especially trans women of color. Denying shelter based on gender identity, threatening
shelters with lawsuits will create additional barriers and further limit options. Sexual and physical violence often occur in shelters. The proponents of this violence are cisgender men, forcing trans women and girls to reside with men and boys will greatly increase these risks, heightening danger and further traumatizing the women and girls. This bill is not about protecting women. Trans youth also deserves
safety. The vast majority of youth shelters do not have programs or provisions for trans youth. The bill creates even more barriers for the most vulnerable of our youth by allowing lawsuits up to 2 years after someone is housed with a trans youth or even after sharing a multi-occupant bathroom. Trans youth are disproportionately unhoused, disproportionately, so many of them faced Being unhoused, and this bill will create even another barrier
for the most vulnerable youth in my community to be
Speaker 291
1:03:29
able to seek shelter and services. This bill is unnecessary, completely unnecessary. There are not instances
Speaker 292
1:03:35
in Arkansas where trans people have caused violence in bathrooms changing facilities. You're not finding it. There is, there are no statistics about trans people. Being violent in our state or going into bathrooms, those statistics, if you look them up,
are actually cisgender men. So this bill is unnecessary and we need legislation to protect all women, all girls. Please vote no on SB 486 and thank you for your time and consideration, and no questions please. All right, thank you for
Speaker 231
1:04:13
your testimony. All right, Senator Johnson. You're recognized to close your bill.
I'm close. Alright, it's closed. I see a motion, motion to pass by Senator Sullivan. See you second. Seconded by Senator Dodson, any discussion on the motion, Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I just want to address the constitutional issue that you raised,
Senator Hammer. I, I don't, I don't believe there's a constitutional issue with a US constitutional issue
with this. I was raising a state constitutional issue. So anything that's been done in another state and been challenged is not relevant to what's in the Arkansas State
Constitution, and really what it's about is just a matter of Sovereign immunity and so that has to be accounted for in the bill. It doesn't mean the whole thing would be struck down. It just means there's no mechanism in the bill to achieve what Senator Johnson is trying to achieve to enable someone to sue the state in the circumstances he thinks the state ought to be sued, and so it's really a procedural thing more than it is a substantive right, and again it's specific only to the Arkansas Constitution, you know she, she mentioned the other bill in Arkansas for school
districts, school districts can be sued. There's no sovereign immunity for school districts in Arkansas, so it's a state, a state specific issue that hasn't been addressed in this bill. There are other problems in the bill. They want to to find shelter as a domestic violence shelter. It's not in there. I think the bill should be cleaned up before it passes out of the committee, which, which it's obviously going to do, but before we vote on it, I just want to say number one, that uh every instance in which harm is caused. that this bill seeks to address
is already addressed in the law. In fact, it's already criminal law. If you go into a bathroom, if you're, if everyone's a woman in there, everyone's a man, it doesn't matter. A man goes into a woman's bathroom, whatever hypothetical you want to come up with, and you expose yourself or attack someone in the bathroom or a shelter, you are guilty of a crime and you'll be sent to prison. So the law already handles these situations. When we address these bills in past sessions, the prosecutors have come to the table. They're not in here right now because it's state agencies, not judiciary. We've handled
these issues in judiciary. The prosecutors came to the table and said, yes, all the circumstances that you're describing are already crimes that we will prosecute if they're brought to our attention. So it is wholly unnecessary. The last, the last point is that you talked about preventing harm. We are actively causing harm with this bill in two ways. One way is If people follow this law when it's passed, it's going to require, you know, transgender people exist. You may not want them to, but they exist in Arkansas, and they need to feel
welcome in their state. They exist. It's going to require trans women to go into men's bathrooms, and it's going to require trans men to go into women's bathrooms, and everyone is going to think they're going into the wrong bathroom. which this bill would require them to do. And that's gonna, that's going to bring danger to people. The other way this causes harm is it, it's bullying a vulnerable community in Arkansas, which the Arkansas legislature has done for decades. We have to have someone to castigate. There has
to be an other. For decades, it was racial minorities. When I first got to the legislature, it was gay and lesbian people. For the last 3 sessions, it's been transgender Arkansans. I had hoped that we had gotten it out of our system because we ran a lot of anti-transgender bills in the 21 and 2023 sessions hadn't seen any so far this session. This is the first one I've seen. It's disappointing to see that it's that it's coming back up, because we're still bullying a vulnerable community in Arkansas. We shouldn't be doing this. The law already handles
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:08:09
the situation adequately under the criminal law, and I'll be voting now. Alright, thank you. All right, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take exception when you say when you make the comment, you and I take that personally, don't want trans people to exist. I don't know how you make that assumption on every one of us here and everyone in the gallery. I don't know how you make that assumption. Secondly, when you say that this is
already covered, we passed all kinds of laws that are already covered, and we, they kind of lay on top of each other. It doesn't mean they're bad laws or they don't help. They're just duplicate what we're already doing maybe cover some things that aren't covered, so you know, I think I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem when You talk about people hating when you claim that I Don't like the fact that gay people are trans people exist.
You're creating that hate also, and by labeling me that way, I get lots of emails like this. I've got a card that says people email me that said I'm a racist and homophobe, and I've got an official card that says that, so I think if you want to make the case that people are creating hate. I think you're doing that. I'll
Speaker 303
1:09:31
be voting for the bill. Thank you. Alright. Any more discussion?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:09:38
Uh, Senator Clark. If there's any bullying being done.
It's when we tell young women. That
a boy Uh, who we can care a great deal about. Who believes that he's a girl. Has to room with them, has to be in a locker room with them, etc. That's bullying, uh. And The, the idea that the protection of those young women is bullying. It's
one of the most egregious things I've heard from
a I've heard it from the public, but from
a senator. Right, more discussions, say none. We've got a motion to pass by Senator Peyton got a second by Senator
Sullivan. All in favor, say aye. Pod. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. but All right. Let's
Speaker 153
1:10:36
see your center hammer. We'll come back up.
And Well in 1693 there, Senator. Uh, 1593. OK, 1693. 1693
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:57
Chris, come on back up. Thank you, please, and I'm Kim Hammer, State Senator District 16. Chris Madison, director of the state
Speaker 150
1:11:06
Board of Election commissioners. All right. So, you're gonna proceed.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:09
Thank you, and I think I'll let go right to Chris for expediency. I think he can get to the point quick and clean.
Speaker 309
1:11:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1693 is a bill that come about based on because we're conducting our
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:11:25
audits, we discovered some issues with remake ballots where they're trying to remake them on election day and running into some challenges with it. So what this bill does is it allows counties to report the number of remake ballots they have to do. The law requires damaged or defective ballots to be remade. That's the current law, and what this does is it allows them to report that number and then we'll adopt.
rules that lay out how the remake is done and it will allow poll watchers, media, and candidates to inspect any remade ballots before they're actually run to ensure that they are a true duplicate of the
voter's original ballot, and that's what this bill is about. It was sponsored initially by the Secretary of State's office. State board met yesterday. We discussed it yesterday at our board meeting, and we're supportive of this bill moving forward. We got to take any questions. All right, members, any questions? Right. See, no questions. Those
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:23
Yeah, don't see my son for against this. Senator Hammer is closed. Thank you. Thank you, explanation gives all the answers to get a good vote. So with
that, I'd make a motion to pass. All right, I got
a motion to pass Senator Hamburg, is a second. Seconded by Senator Clark, any discussion on the motion, none in favor say aye closed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Next
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:44
up, we can take Senate Bill 472. I'm sorry, which one, sir? Or? For Senate Bill 447979.
Concerning voter assistance. And We need introductions again or are we good? Kim Hammer, state senator of District 16. Chris Madison, director
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:13:06
of the State Board of Election commissioners, and this is a state board sponsored bill. OK. And
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:13:11
this bill's been before you before, but there were some questions, so I think no, it's not sorry, think of another one. Anyway, I'll let Chris get to it if that's OK, Mr. Chairman. He can get to the quick and clean.
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:13:25
Actually, Senator, you are correct. We had this as part of the nursing home, but Senator Tucker raised some questions related to the ID on the sister, so we pulled that portion out of it and we're running this as a separate bill. And what we did, Senator, is we took your input on it and we rewrote it so that an assist work person assisting someone in casting, marking and casting their ballot in the poll. If they're over the age of 18, have to provide ID or other document and then it directs us to adopt a rules that govern how that's done and what we're looking to do.
is if they provide an ID that is Amendment 51 qualifying, then the checking clerk right at the front desk puts her name down because it's to verify their identity. If they have, like you the example you gave us an Oklahoma daughter coming over if they have an out of state ID or something that's not Amendment 51, that gets handed over to the poll supervisor where we capture a little more information off of the ID to verify their identity. And then lastly, and this actually came from my local task force group that said if you have someone that doesn't have an ID, what do you do with them? And what we would do is have a rule where They would fill out this information and then they would
sign an affidavit saying, I swear I am who I say I am, and that would be done through rule. The reason we're suggesting doing it through rule is that allows a little bit of flexibility if we find better ways of doing this to work it in the field and so that's why we've adopted this proposal. I believe it addresses your questions that you had and uh I'm
Speaker 314
1:14:42
happy to answer any questions. All right, members, any
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:49
questions? Sarah Tucker First of all, I just want to thank you for, for working on this. I really appreciate you taking the input and going back, and I think this is much better than what we started with our
sincerely appreciate that. um, and I also respect the fact that doing things in rule gives you a little more flexibility, um, but generally, and you and I discussed this before the committee meeting started exactly what you just said, but, but generally the state board is going to create rules kind of with 33 classifications. One is with an amendment certified certified ID which you can just sign and keep going, even if there's an adjustment, and then the second is another state's ID and you've got to
fill out a little more information, and then the third is if you don't have an ID then you fill out a form to say that to prove to say that you are who you say you are.
Those are the rules that the state board is going to promulgate to start.
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:15:40
Yeah, that is correct and that's based on your input and my input from my local task force and I think that covers all the bases because the purpose of this is to verify the identity of this. and just make sure that we have that information correct. Thank you very
much. Any other questions from the committee? All right, see you no. here
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:02
Don't see anybody signed up to speak for against this. Senator Hammer, has closed. Thank you. I think's been thoroughly explained, and with that asked
for a good vote and with that I make a motion to pass. But a motion do pass, Senator Hammer a second, seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the
motion? Any none. All in favor say aye. Pos. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Senate Bill 491.
Sarah Hammer, uh, Senate Bill 491. I want to try to get these Senate bills out, make sure we get these Senate bills out.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:35
Uh, in a nutshell, what this bill does
is that if there is a vendor that is providing information, uh. And it is coming from them as far as, and this is specifically like going to EBD. We have a situation I'll just be real clear right now, we've got a situation right now where Navidus is providing information EVD Naitus is not only the PBM, but they're also the one that's providing the
information to EBD of which we have another bill before us that is going to be debated based on a fiscal impact that they presented. It's my opinion that if you are in a scenario like that that what we need is a third party verifier that the information that we are getting in this case from like Navitas going to EBD, that there's a third party that is able to look at that information, make sure that the information we are getting from them is accurate, thorough, and has been had another set of eyes
on it, otherwise you've got, you've got in this case like the PBM who owns, you know, the pharmacies giving data information. EBD, but there's there's not a checks and balance between the two points, and we're going to be making a decision based on that. I just think there ought to be a third party inserted into that to verify that what we've gotten is is accurate and true. There are safeguards that are built in here in order to protect that information so that so that it's not, you know, proprietary and all that kind of
stuff, and that's what the bill's intended to do. All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Any questions from the committee? All right, so no questions. I don't have anybody to sign up
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:19
to speak for against this. Senator Hammer, you're recognized to close. Thank you. I've explained it, and I believe it'd be a good thing for us to do to just kind of, um, keep barriers where they need
Speaker 156
1:18:27
to be, and with that I'll make a motion to pass. A motion
to pass. The seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion say none. All in favor
say aye opposed. Congratulations, Senator Hamer. Your bill passes. Senator, I'm going to ask you to
step aside. Senator Boyd, you come up here,
we're going to start knocking out some Senate bills here and OK. boy you doing, um,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:18:51
about 510? Alright, yourself in proceed with Senate Bill 510. State Senator Justin Boyd
Fort Smith. Senate Bill 510. So in Fort Smith, there is a basically a parking lot that the Choctaw Nation owns and that, so that parking lot is actually located in Arkansas.
And so what happens is because that's tribal land, if there's a crime. Being committed on that parking lot. That right now the city of Fort Smith, the Sebastian County Sheriff, the the state trooper, any other law enforcement that comes up. Uh, could not do anything about it. And so what this bill does is it allows cross-deputization between a tribal, um, Entity and state and local law
enforcement so that if, say, the Fort Smith police were the first people on the scene, they could actually do something. So it's about keeping people safe and protecting the
public. All right, member for an explanation of the bill. Senator Sullivan,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:19:56
you're recognized for a question. I assume there's no federal law that were violating by doing this cross deputation. That's,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:01
that's correct, but we do need enabling legislation for it to happen in Arkansas. Thank you.
Speaker 329
1:20:06
All right, Senator Payton, recognize for a question. Thank you,
Senator Ward. Obviously we need law enforcement to be able
to react on the parking lot. I'm just curious as to what law applies to what's happening on the parking lot. Is it Arkansas law, US law, or is it the tribal law because will our officers know and understand what the travel law is, and if an arrest is made, will they be going to a tribal court or to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:35
an Arkansas court. Thank you, very good question, Senator Payton. So the answer is there are agreements worked out ahead of time on how
things transpire. Now, as far as prosecution, that's What this does is it allows law enforcement to roll up on the scene, do what law enforcement does and then work out on the back end how it's going to be prosecuted. OK. Are
there any other tribal lands in Arkansas? This
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:21:02
is the only one I'm familiar with. So we've got one parking lot, but this is an important component, uh, the city of Fort Smith has reviewed this. I, I understand that, you know, the state doesn't have any
concerns. The Choctaw, they're aware that this is happening. Everybody seems to be good.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:21:27
OK, thank you. Sarah Clarke. But Is this to Allow Law enforcement should something happen. On tribal land and and they need help to summon other help. Is this for some law enforcement officer who happens to be there
on tribal land to be able to act if they see a crime, or is this for, and it could be
all the above, or is this so that Uh Federal, state, local law enforcement can work
Speaker 341
1:22:05
security for casinos. My understanding is
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:22:08
it's so that if we have a crime happening on in physically within the bounds of Arkansas that also happens to be an Indian nation in this case,
the Choctaw Nation, that if there's a crime happening that somebody can deal with the crime. Have we, have
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:27
stors of that happening and needing help. I'm not aware of one, but I want
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:22:32
to be proactive. These are my, these are my people. They could be your people too, but I know that they're my people that are in that parking lot, and I want to help make sure that we have what's in place to help keep them safe, and it makes me no difference whether it's a Fort Smith policeman or a tribal policeman, I want to make sure
if there's crime going on that someone can intervene sooner rather than later and not worry about after the fact, did,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:57
did I do something wrong? Will it do number 3, which was allow Federal, state, and local law enforcement to work security with their law enforcement. Uh It allows them to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:23:15
work as law enforcement. If so if that's what you, if that's what you're
asking, then the answer is this is going to allow cross-deputization so that if there's a, if, if we've gone through the process, then they're going to have that ability. Is it, is it asking them to be security guards, that's certainly not my intent, you know, does that mean that a Fort Smith police officer might not sign up
to to do that. I don't know that, but you would have to go through the cross-deputization in order
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:23:45
to do that. I don't intend to be at a casino, much less commit a crime
in a casino. I'm not against your bill, but I'm betting it ends up not your intent, and I believe you that it is not your intent, but I bet it ends up being number 3 more than anything else. Thank,
thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from members? Alright, see you then. We have signed up to speak on the bill. All right, don't have my sign up speak
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:24:12
for against this. Senator Boyd, you recognize to close. Uh, thank you committee for giving me the opportunity to hear this bill. Uh, I appreciate the ability to try to answer your questions and I'd appreciate someone giving me a
due pass in a second and a good vote. All right, got a motion to passed by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Payton. discussion on the motion saying not all in favor, say aye,
oppose. Congratulations, Senator Boyd. Thank you guys. quickest bill we've heard all
Speaker 227
1:24:36
morning. All right, uh, who else got these Senate bills? All right, Sarah Clark.
SB 471. All right, members, SB 471. Senator, introduce yourself, and you're a recognized
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:25:07
to proceed with SB 471. Alan Clark State. Senate District 7, SB 471 is extremely simple, uh, I have seen several bills since I've been in the legislature. Uh Moving the both taking away the ability to run with judged by your name, adding the ability in certain situations. This one
says if you've ever been a judge for 12 months, you can run with the title by your name. It's a very simple cleanup. Why shouldn't you be able to run with judged by your name if you were a judge. Be happy to take any questions. All right, members, any questions for Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:25:53
Clark? Uh, Senator Tucker. This may not be right on point, but, but like take my neighbor right here. He was out of the Senate for 4 years. When he ran again, could he put Senator Brian King on the
ballot, or could he not because he was not actively serving in that office. I'm just curious how this
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:09
compares to other offices, if you know, I, I, you could ask Senator King, I believe he could, but. What I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:16
sorry I was looking on my phone when you ran for election in 22. You've been out of office for 4 years. Could you put Senator Brian King on the ballot or were you not allowed to because you, OK. Anyway, I'm fine with Rod, just curious how it applies to other offices.
Thanks, Senator. All right, any questions to the committee? All right, see no, Carly, we got everybody sign up to speak on this bill. Don't have anybody that speak for or against this. Senator, you're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:45
working to close for your bill. The I, I have heard of no opposition to this bill. I would appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass. All right,
I got a motion passed by Senator Clark to see a second Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion, say none. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Senator King.
Senator King, what's your bill you're running
Senate Bill 410. OK. All right, so you're gonna introduce yourself and You'd be recognized to proceed with
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:27:25
Senate Bill 410. Senator King, District 28, OK, members, this is, I won't go through. I think everybody was here for the last discussion on this post reporting bill and just won't go through everything. Deloitte, McKenzie, several of these
entities get millions, hundreds of millions of dollars voted on by us. You see these or even agency people leave and go to work for lobbying entities. They renamed their self into consultant, account manager, whatever they want to name. and then they have no reporting even though they may work for a lobbying firm, you could have a situation where I could leave office, some entity that I voted to give $50 million to come buy a cow off me for $50,000. There's a lot of things can
happen nefariously. We know we have a horrible history of of members doing uh illegal things and been convicted of bribery. I'm just saying for transparency when you leave office. I did make the 3 changes that the committee recommended. It said full-time or part-time, which would include us. uh, I did make knowingly. In there as Senator Payton wanted and then as Senator Hammer and I talked about, I put a sunset on this clause that way in 4 years, it goes away and if
the legislature at that time wants to repass it, they can. And I, I, believe me, if you've numb me down like I like sunsets on bills because once you get it in there, 4 people on a committee can hang a horrible something later. So this sun sets the bill to see something. And it's just post reporting. So I've made the changes the committee recommended. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the
Speaker 95
1:29:00
bill. Any questions from the committee? All right, Senator Dodson, we're going to ask for a question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. So I'm just trying to think back through this bill that I'm going back through it. You, you didn't make any changes if I'm seeing it,
uh, where it only applies to somebody who is actually in a position of authority, so if someone is a I mean if they again, you know, say they were a social worker, they worked for DHS, but they went to work for a Uh You know, another entity outside of state government that
regularly has contracts with I understand knowingly is there, but you're still putting a requirement for them to report for 4 years and currently they're not. They're not a. They're not in any position where they're filing a SFI right now as a You
know, I hate to say low-level employee but a regular entry level employee, um, might be. I think
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:30:11
that thing of a social worker somehow decided
$50 million contracts, hundreds of millions, I mean, and they go to work for an entity, say, a nursing home that I, I mean, yeah, they can have to report that, but yet I mean, there is nothing wrong with that where this gets into is you have Medicaid directors that decide hundreds of millions of dollars, they can manipulate policy. They can manipulate or even vote on, even not manipulating contracts, everything like that. I mentioned Deloitte, for example,
Deloitte, uh, was receiving $0. Governor Hutchison comes in. Next thing you know, Deloitte is getting hundreds of millions of dollars they've received over a half a billion dollars. So that's where this comes into. I mean, I, I don't know how to say, you know, a DMV worker like you said, I mean, we all know what this is. I mean, so the situations where somebody, we have a 2-year ban on lobbying, correct? Yeah, so if they go to work for a lobbying firm, and they call their self a consultant or
account manager and go directly work for a lobbying firm, they have no reporting at all. And yet we all know they're lobbyists, so that's what this is directed about. The DMV worker, the social worker, that's not the issue and problem. Any other
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:31:41
questions for the committee? Senator Hammer on page and I'm, I'm wondering is what is concerning to Senator Dodson addressed on page 2 line 3
through 6, and I'm not sure, so I'm asking you. Former state employee means a person who was previously Regularly appointed or employed. In a position of state service by state agency. you. What's your idea behind that phrase? Is that a is that a a net that catches everybody, or is it a narrow net that just catches the few you're
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:32:15
trying to catch. State employee retires and they go into retirement as we would think so with not any
connections to an entity that was uh receiving a lot of state dollars as I've mentioned before about Deloitte McKenzie, Medicaid contracts, a whole laundry list of other things, then they don't have to do anything. And when I went out my 4 years, I went back to farming. I did not go to work for Anything. I mean, we, if we decide this prison deal maybe veneer could conceivably hire me or anybody else or any other state official official and leave and there's no reporting
with that, even though they were involved in the mechanism in some way of awarding these huge contracts. So I mean, it is pretty clear what is going on with these individuals who ignore. The, you know, I'm not lobbying firm and they're consultants and their account managers and they're working for a lobbying firm. That that is mainly what it's directed for. You could have a Medicaid entity. That could be in the mechanism
of policy contracts approving. You know, millions or hundreds of millions that I mentioned with Deloitte or McKenzie or anything, and they go go to work for them. Yeah, I think there should be
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:33:39
some type of reporting. OK, and I'm just trying to think
in the in the mindset of a where's the loophole if if this bill is passed currently. If I remember right, the law says that if you are a legislator, you can't go to work as a lobbyist for 2 years, 2 years afterwards.
And in passing this piece of legislation. We're not short circuiting or bypassing that because then I could say, you know what, I fulfilled Senator King's bill and I registered and that fulfilled the obligation of law, and that wouldn't let me off. What the other law says as far as I can't serve for two years. Would this become a they can't register as
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:21
a lobbyist because there's a two-year ban on lobbying, but if they go to the situation of go to work for a
lobbying firm, but they're an account manager or they're a consultant. I mean, that that's what this is supposed
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:34:36
to catch what you're trying to, yeah, you're trying to catch what's, what's what happens or could happen outside of registering as a lobbyist. This catches everybody up
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:44
and go to work for these firms that decide that work now for the ones that they voted to give millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for. It's pretty clear what is really going on is skirting the law. I mean, they're just skirting the law. Let's just be honest.
I mean, and you could ban can somebody say, well, do consultants. Well, now you, you could
Speaker 120
1:35:08
be an errand boy or whatever, so. Alright, Senator Dodson, and
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:35:12
Senator Clark or Senator Tucker, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
At the very end you said this section expires June 30th, 2029. So this is only going to be in effect for the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:35:22
next 4 years. That's correct, and I think the sunset is good because if it, if something like we don't know what we don't know, there may be
situations come up and you move through it, then it would allow the
legislature to look at what happens over the next 4 years and if they want to in that time, they could repass it or see that it's needed or not needed and go from there. You just get around the process of we make too many bills that You know 11 people in in in the whole legislature in a House committee could stop something for, could stop something here, so it just resets everything. With
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:35:57
this I don't know if this is retroactive or not, but if this
goes into effect, there's no emergency clause on to it, so 90 days afterine die later this summer, uh, would it go back for 4 years prior, so if somebody was employed 2.5, 3 years ago they would have to start reporting even though they
may have been out of state government for a couple of years. I would hope that the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:36:21
people that this is supposed to be designed to, as I've mentioned before, would Voluntarily admit how much they're receiving. I mean, we have to receive this on our
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:36:34
financial disclosure forms. So, uh, yeah, I would hope so. So, so your intent is for them to have to file if if it's like I said, somebody may not know that they're, I
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:36:46
think the law is and maybe Senator Tucker here are,
are uh committee attorney Mike could get it retroactively go back and force those say if one person went out as state rep and then all of a sudden, Would they have to apply to this. I would certainly hope so, but maybe that's a question. Well, I'm not necessarily
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:37:04
talking about state reps or senators or anyone who is regularly reporting, they probably are likely aware of the laws and the reporting requirements under that, and, and they're they're current. You know, status, I guess if it's been a couple of years or whatever. Well, I'm concerned about as regular employees because this covers everybody and now that you've included part time, you may have somebody that worked in state government for One day quit, but now they're
caught under this law or violating this law because they're They're not actually They didn't ever report anything and they weren't required to, but this
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:37:45
law catches everyone. Those those examples are so out of That even if they work for the state in a part time, I made the choice for the committee. Do you not see an issue with these legislators that leave and go to work for a lobbying firm, so you think it's OK for them to call yourself an account manager, go to work for a lobbying firm. So you think that's OK. I'm not
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:07
arguing with that narrowly defined. This bill is much broader than that specific instance, so you're specifically trying to catch what this is targeting or what your intent is is former legislators. That that that's the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:21
agency people or the people in the mechanism to decide on this, yes, that's exactly what it is, but
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:27
my question to you is, so people making decisions is who you're trying
to target with this, but this catches everyone part time, full time, all state
employees at every level of government. This is very broadly written to where it doesn't just narrowly define it for those individuals you're trying to
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:47
target. Yes, but I mean, once you go to do it, but I guess you're OK with uh somebody going to work and just ignoring the current lobbying things and go to work as an account manager or whatever you want to call yourself. So, I mean, this thing of a DMV employee going to work for some entity that all of a sudden they have to report is
very rare and not the issue that we're doing. I mean, once again, I filed 4 Medicaid disclosures and all the wants of our former colleagues that were convicted and even ency people all went back to Medicaid, and I was, you know, throwing out these wild extremes at that time too. I made the changes that the committee recommended last
Speaker 343
1:39:29
time, so I'm just back again for the committee, Senator, OK, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:39:34
Chair. You're not actually banning, we talked about you can't, you have a prohibition on lobbying for 2
years, you have to leave the legislature, right? But you're not actually prohibiting anything
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:45
with this bill. You're, you're just asking for
disclosure, No, and it just gets around this thing of not these way out. Extreme, like I said, during my time in the legislature when I was calling out Medicaid and saying there was something going on and all the names I was called and all the extremes that we were given in these situations. I mean, just look at what happened. We decide hundreds and billions of dollars, and the situation of these people literally just flaunting the law and saying I'm
not a lobbyist, I'm an account manager, but I'm working for a lobbying firm after they decided to give Literally millions or hundreds of millions. This is not extreme. This is just disclosure, and it's the same, these extremes that I've been given are the same
extremes I was given during Medicaid disclosures and look what happened on that. All right, Senator Clark,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:40:36
do you have a question? You know, just brief.
An Senator King, if this will catch uh somebody who works for vendor procurement and goes to work for a company that they continually gave no bid contracts to Yes, thank you.
All right. Any questions for the committee? All right, see none, motion to pass. Alright, don't have everybody speak 4 against this. We got a motion to pass. Senator King, seconded by Senator Clark. Any discussion on the motion say none. All in
Speaker 24
1:41:16
favor say aye, aye opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. All right. Next up, Also
got a Senate bill. Any Senate bills to be run. Any at
Speaker 200
1:41:40
all. Senator Bryant, you got a Senate bill you want to run.
Speaker 168
1:41:46
I can ask the committee. No personal privilege in your
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:41:56
life. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Senate bill 493 due to the limited time, I would like to keep, keep that on the agenda, but I would like to request those that came to speak for or against it to meet me outside the chamber.
All right. That sounds a little ominous. All right, so if you're here to speak on 493. I'd like to visit with the elites in its sponsor. He'd be happy to
visit with you all right outside the chamber here. All right. Representative Richmond, did you have a bill Man, you have the patience of Job if you're sitting here. Golly. It's
Speaker 121
1:42:49
one word to use for it, um, all right, any
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:43:06
other Senate bills right, Senator Hammer. No. No, you'll stay right where you are right, Senator, what are you running now? Uh, we're on 1714. Can I get a handout. Yeah, I do, please. OK. And can I get Jerry Cox come to the table. Come on Jerry.
If you would introduce yourself for the
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:43:41
record, and you'll be recognized. Kim Hammer state senator District 16, Jerry Cox, director
of Family council. OK. And you're recognized to present House Bill 1714.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:43:52
Thank you, Ms. Sharon. I'll give a brief summary, hit some high points, and then go right into questions. This bill clarifies the definition of a paid canvasser. Current law says that anyone who receives anything of value in return for soliciting signatures on a petition as a
paid canvasser. Paid canvassers are subject to certain laws that do not apply to volunteer canvassers. This bill further clarifies they're receiving anything of value, including includes re ce iv ing payment for items like food, lodging, travel bonuses, or bonuses, fees, gift cards, any other payments associated with obtaining signatures on the petition. Uh, it gives some points to clarify the members have a handout unless you want me to read it for you, uh, I'll dispel with that. There are some
questions and answers that are also listed there, things that have been heard, I think they're appropriate responses to each one of those, and Mr. Chairman, the bill's pretty clean and cut forward straightforward and that it identifies items that would be considered as receiving payment and clarifies what previous is a gray area and hopefully we'll put some black and white to it, and with that I'd like to defer to Mr. Cox, and then we'll go straight to questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:45:11
Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as Senator Hammer has pointed out, this is
a very straightforward bill. It doesn't add anything to current law, not one thing, because current law says that if anything of value, any money or anything of value is given. in exchange for signatures, then you are a paid canvasser. All this does is clarify that if
you pay someone's expenses to drive down to Hope, Arkansas and gather signatures and you put them up in a motel and feed them and all those things, you may not be writing them a paycheck, but that's something of value being exchanged in return for gathering signatures and so um when we were in the House committee, um, they did a really pretty good job of vetting. and talking about, well, what would be payment and how would this work, but if you look at the list down through there, it says over and over again,
payment, payment, payment, payment. It's on there 6 or 8 times probably. And so I think we've made it very clear that Payment means something in exchange. I'm giving you this in exchange for getting signatures. So again, it doesn't add anything. It just clarifies what's already there. And with that,
Speaker 381
1:46:35
Mr. Chair, that concludes what I have
to say. Thank you. I guess I'll go first, so, basically, you're just saying it's not changing
the requirement to separate paid and unpaid canvassers, but it's closed in a few loopholes that they might use to get around it. Very well said, Mr. Chair. Very well said. Are there
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:57
any questions from the committee, Senator Tucker? Thank you Mr. Chair. I hear what you're saying,
Mr. Cox, about payment, payment, payment. But all The entire
list where that word payment is used. That's clarifying, so that's in. Subdivision 3b2 and that's clarifying.
What subdivision 3B1 is saying and subdivision 3B1 says receives an item of value, so payment is not actually used in subdivision B31 where where you're Correct, correct, and we did discuss that in
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:47:29
the House committee, and so you have to go all the way up to the very top, and I don't have the bill in front of me, but I kind of remember how it was laid out. You have to go up to the top up there where it says in exchange for soliciting.
or obtaining and I'm under Section 13 there in exchange for soliciting or obtaining a signature on a petition, then everything else flows out of that and it is the way it's, it's written and so again, It doesn't change anything, because when
the law says anything of value, I think most of us would say, OK, that would mean a gift card. That would mean a stipend that would, but
some people don't understand it that way, and so I would submit that what this does is it helps people not break the law. And it makes them, it helps them understand where the lines are and. No matter what kind of signatures you're gathering or for what
it is, it, it treats everybody exactly the same, so it's again it's just to clarify. OK,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:39
thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you for the thorough response, yeah. So I, I see on your sheet here for follow up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see on your sheet here you have examples about pizza parties and water bottles and on the sheet it says that's not. A violation so long as you're not doing it in
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:49:02
exchange for. That's correct, and that. Believe it or not, I believe the house may have spent, uh, I don't know how many minutes talking about that and and I think it was thoroughly vetted over there, but I will tell you the, um, my conclusion, and I believe the conclusion of many
others as they support this is that if you say, All you pro-life people that love the abortion petition, get together and we're going to eat pizza. Well that's not trading for signatures. But if you say, we're all gonna get together and we're going to give you a t-shirt and some pizza and a gift card. I go get signatures, then you're stepping stepping over the line, and I think um you as an attorney know that in
some of these situations, we're going to have to say, well, it depends. That's what my attorney friends say a lot about when you get into the finer details. Let me submit that situation already exists even right now under the current law, and I think at a minimum we've
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:09
made it more clear. So could you have a scenario where at the end of a week of gathering signatures, a ballot measure sponsor gives $500 to a volunteer, not in exchange for using this reasoning, not in exchange for
soliciting or retaining a signature, but just because that
volunteer told a joke that the ballot measure sponsor really brought a lot of
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:50:29
joy to their life. You might be able to do that you could do it right now under current law, and it would be a subject of debate, I believe. It would be a subject of maybe less debate
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:42
with this this measure in place. I would say that in almost every instance where a ballot measure
sponsor. is providing sheets for people to sign petitions. There's a clipboard given along with that.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:50:57
Well, the clipboard would be a tool of the trade. You don't, listen, I've done I've probably done 5 ballot measures and we tried to get every one of those clipboards back because we were the ones that bought the clipboards and we said, you know, when you turn your signatures in, turn in your clipboards. So if they failed to do that, that it wouldn't be something in exchange for it. It would be just they failed to give back clipboard. You gave it to them
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:23
for the purpose of soliciting obtaining signature, so I don't think there's any way
around the fact that you gave them an item of value in exchange
Speaker 390
1:51:32
for soliciting or obtaining a signature. I would, I would respectfully disagree. I would respectfully disagree with that interpretation.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:38
The requirements under the law for paid Signature gap for paid canvassers are a lot more extensive than they are for volunteers, correct, correct, very
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:51:46
much more, and they should be, and they should be. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Tucker. I'd just like to, I mean, the difference between a gift and compensation.
Is transaction. So if you have a transaction where you're exchanging Mhm. Something of value for their labor or for their accomplishments. That's totally different
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:52:12
than a gift. It is, and if you look on line 21, it says in exchange for soliciting
and so that's to your point, Mr. Chair. It's, there's an exchange going on there. Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:52:32
I, I read your, your. And Q and A here and I continue to go back and see where it says, especially on like
on page 1 line 34 where it says reimbursement for expenses. That's underneath the item of value list and definition. So in that instance, a clipboard would be an item of value.
Because that's an expense related to the soliciting or painting of signatures on a petition. And so According to this definition, Every volunteer will be a paid canvasser. There there's if you give them a water bottle regardless of what your cheat sheet over here says on Q&A, the actual words of the law, this is a substantive change. It's not just clarification in the law as the
way I'm reading it and, you know, I'm not a judge. Eventually that will be adjudicated, I would imagine in court what we write here, uh, but In my judgment, the way I read it, this eliminates volunteer canvassers in their entirety. Senator Johnson,
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:53:51
if I may, let me call your attention to
what the current law says. And I would submit that
If this eliminates volunteer. Canvassers than the current law does. Because what the current law says Is that if it is, if you look online 25, it says in exchange, it, it, it talks about anything. So, if you read on 23. It says, is paid with whom they are is an agreement or with whom
there's an agreement to pay money, money, or anything of value before or after signatures are gathered, and this one deals with local option because there's two sections to it. But it's the same for statewide measure and I get what you're saying in exchange, so. If, if, if, if one could make that point about a clipboard under this law, I really believe it would apply under the current law. Well,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:55:09
That would probably be on a case by case basis, and as you said, attorneys can differ on their their interpretation of what something of value is. We, you know, back and forth goes all the time is, is a piece of candy and a candy ball bowl of a thing of value, an item of value that you know, it's, it's something that's in the candy bowl that everybody comes by and if it's publicly accessible, then but if it's something that You know, has a penny. That's
something of value if there's a penny it's worth, so you could have that argument, but I don't know that any Any serious attorney would take that suit to court to challenge a judge to say, Hey, you had a pizza party for your volunteers, and that was, that was an item of value for giving them a water bottle on a hot day out in the sun or but under this law, by defining those things specifically payment for food. Payment or reimbursement for
expenses, especially those items. would give A An attorney Standing in court to at least make that argument and a judge, if I was the judge, I would have to rule that that's a thing of value and say that they're not a volunteer. They are now in effect a paid canvasser by this new definition. And I would Respectfully say again.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:56:45
The current law says if there's anything of value exchanged, so that could be a clipboard. That could be A bottle of water, it could be a hamburger, whatever under current law. I really believe it could. At least this attempts to clarify for people. What? The current
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:57:09
law means. And so And I appreciate your intent to
try to clarify it, and I think it's worthwhile, I just kind of disagree that payment for food should be included in this list, or reimbursement for expenses like Reasonable expenses for soliciting, obtaining signatures on a petition. Those are things that volunteers need and shouldn't have to provide out of their own pocket as volunteers if you have a petition gathering campaign. I mean, I might even go so far as to argue that
lodging a travel expenses could be reimbursed for volunteer, uh, but those are, those are nuances. On what should be included in that list or shouldn't be, and it could be, it could be Senator Dodson,
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:58:03
that You have a A disagreement or an issue with the with the current law because I think most people would say that anything of value that's exchanged. Could be
It could be, for example, if I, if I, if I went down to, I'll use Hope, Arkansas for an example. And Somebody said, we will pay for your gasoline. We will pay for your food. We'll put you up in a motel for 3 nights. We will buy you a t-shirt and we'll, we'll do all these things for you. Then I would submit a question that we
need to think about is at what point
Does all that stuff. Then become Uh, in exchange for gathering signatures. How many, how many tanks of gasoline, how
many hamburgers, how many motels, lodgings, at some point that person maybe ceases to be a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:59:06
volunteer and maybe they're paid and what I mean, I think those are two very different things. One's a reimbursement for expenses incurred. Volunteers can be reimbursed in
my opinion for expenses incurred without actually receiving something of value. Now if you're talking about stipends, allowances, fees, gratuities, awards, gift cards, those would be things that I would agree with you are things of value, but when we're talking about reimbursement. I think we're, we're probably not going to get to
Speaker 400
1:59:36
agreement on that maybe so, and I see, I really do
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:59:40
see your point, but I would circle back to the current law, which it says payment or anything of value in exchange for gathering the signatures.
It would seem to me that that is
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:59:54
a matter of current law. That, that what we're talking about, I think we're maybe reading it
a little differently, but But as far as the the item of list of things that are payment or a thing of an item of value would be something where you're enriched by this other than just volunteering your time, that would be, in my opinion, where you become a paid canvasser versus a volunteer canvasser, but I'll
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:00:22
let some I appreciate your question. I do appreciate it. Senator Clark, What uh Uh If I'm A volunteer which I've just always. Seeing it as strictly going out and Volunteering, uh, but if somebody's paying. For my gas, paying. For my meals or a meal here and
there and I, and I cross over into the
paid. Mhm. Excuse me. Um What are the differences? What are, how does that affect? What rules am I going by now that I wasn't going by before Senator, you're
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:01:11
saying if a person is a paint canvasser, what rules do they need to follow? OK. I don't have all
those right in front of me, but I'll do my best to recollect what they are. You
have to register with the Secretary of State. They have to have a criminal background check. They have to do a criminal background check on the person. And I think beyond that, they, they then go out and get signatures, so I think it's register, you know, sign up, and then they do a criminal background check, and I assume if you don't pass that, maybe you
don't get to be a paid canvasser, but I think that's it. So if someone was
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:01:56
Because I think Central Datson's asked some legitimate questions and so if uh If somebody's willing to pay for my gas, willing to pay for my meals, and I'm volunteering and getting nothing else. Then I imagine they would probably be willing to. Pay for my background check and my. Any costs with
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:02:17
falling. You could certainly do that, yeah, I mean, and that's, that's certainly everybody's right. Anybody can be a paid canvasser,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:02:26
but this bill would eliminate then people who are being given
Speaker 403
2:02:31
gift cards and stuff instead of being
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:02:33
paid with the check. Correct. And it would also help people not to inadvertently break the law. Because just like Senator Dodson and I, you know, had, you know, discussion back and forth. I would again submit to the committee that this may not clarify every possible situation, and I don't know of any law out here that does.
That's why we have judges and courts where they have to consider the facts, but at least this puts us a step further toward knowing what the law is and say, you know what, if I'm giving all my volunteers $100 gift cards at Walmart, probably it's the equivalent of them
being paid. And um and these other things here too, so yes, thank you for your questions thank
you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. You're recognized for a question
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:30
or two. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe not 3. Are people inadvertently breaking the
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:03:37
law quite a bit now. Is it a pervasive problem? Not that I know of. And, and I think I pointed that out in the sheet that probably went around. I don't know of anyone who's currently been, uh, you know, prosecuted or charged or accused of of all that. I could tell you anecdotal things, but it would just be anecdotal, Senator, but I think we would all agree we
would just soon people not not get caught in that. Inadvertently and think that you could do all these other things as long as there was an exchange of money, and again, I think it helps that situation. If I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:13
running for re-election for the state senate, someone's coming to knock on doors for me, and I gave him a Clark Tucker
for state Senate t-shirt before they go out and knock on doors. Should that make them a paid employee of my campaign.
Speaker 405
2:04:26
I don't know enough about campaign law, Senator, to comment on that. I'm sorry. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Tucker. So I'm reminded of a story
my dad told me. This was, I guess during World War II they had Uh, price caps on different things. And uh he was a mechanic working at a car dealership. And uh there was a price cap on how much they could sell a new Ford for. And the dealership had a rooster in the shop in a cage.
And there was no price cap on roosters. And they sold. Several vehicles over a period of time. But to buy the vehicle, you had to buy the rooster. And his story was how this one old farmer came in and bought the vehicle and the rooster and then demanded to take the rooster home. So I mean, as long as we have abilities for these reimbursements just like per diem. I mean, there's a chance that
somebody could be pretty creative and pretty obnoxious with the way they skirt them, I believe they could, and I would just remind people that, you know, on per diem or, or when you're figuring traveling expenses, you've got an automobile that's more than just a tank of gas. That's wear and tear maintenance, upkeep, and whether or not you're driving a Uh, Impala versus a Cadillac. You
know, there's a difference, that's correct and so I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:07
I appreciate your being here. Central Park. Uh, yes, I want. Follow up, I think Senator Tucker asked a good question too. If If I'm a volunteer and they give me signs. The put up buttons, etc. That's not, that's not in
covered in this anywhere that's. That's part of uh because that's
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:06:31
no reimbursement to me. That's correct. It wouldn't be an exchange. There has to be some
sort of an exchange. You get signatures I give you this for
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:41
for doing that to the t-shirt. Is there a doubt there because in his example I give someone a t-shirt that says Alan Clark for Senate. I don't, I'm not giving it to them as a As a reward, I'm giving it to them so that everybody's if we're in a parade, they don't know who we are. They don't know what
we're doing in the parade unless we, unless it says Alan Clarkston is in it. They don't
know why you're standing on the corner. Correct. That's correct. OK, thank you. Thank you. Any more questions, Senator Hammer, saying no more
questions. Would you like to thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you signed up for and against. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I buried it. Dr. Gil. Dr. Gail Scho, come on up.
You'll be recognized. You've signed up to speak against the bill. OK. Take a
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:07:54
seat, introduce yourself and who you're with, and you'll be recognized. So my name is Dr. Gail Choate, and thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. I am, as I have testified in front of you before, a proponent of
the portions of our system of government that creates the opportunity for everyday people to give voice, um, the Arkansas Constitution, of course, is very clear that the process of direct democracy was established as a way for the people to provide a check and balance against the system and as we all know in our form of government, checks and balances are very important. While I appreciate very much the
desire of the bill's sponsors to clarify paid versus volunteer canvassers, I believe that this bill goes one step too far. I was in the room when the House committee heard this bill, and there was extensive discussion about the list of remunerated services in the bill that would move somebody from being volunteer to being paid. And that's a great deal of my concern because Mr. Cox
testified that there were very few things other than like the criminal background check that were the difference between paid and volunteer, I would argue that it's more extensive than that. Um, number one, under legislation passed this session, if a person is a paid canvasser, they must, before they begin collecting signatures, submit an affidavit. to the Secretary of State's office. This law because of it
defining after the process has begun, the movement of someone from being volunteer to being paid puts in jeopardy that process and makes it very muddy. Now, do I think that people who are fraudulently trying to skirt the system, call themselves volunteer, and then later are found out to have been receiving remuneration for their services. Should that be called into question? Absolutely. But what I'm concerned about is the
very specific listing of some of these services, as Senator Dodson was pointing out very specifically the one about food, for an example, or the reimbursement of expenses. It
would be quite possible under this bill as it's being presented, that someone begins as a volunteer canvasser, and then along the way because they are a volun ti er meaning that these bottles of water or these pieces of pizza are not being given to the
general public, but they're specifically brought for the volunteers to receive that that could be construed as being an inducement for them being volunteers or for collecting signatures. I think it muddies the water. It doesn't clarify it. While I applaud again the bill's sponsors for attempting to clarify, I I think the issue of food and of reimbursement of expenses does not clarify, but in fact makes
it much more confusing and the ramifications on that canvasser are significant. The other reason I think it's really important that sometimes we don't over define is because sometimes what it does is it creates more confusion. We saw in the field when we were collecting signatures during this past cycle. There was a lot of confusion on behalf of volunteers about exactly what was supposed to happen. It became very confrontational at times. So I
would urge us to make sure that when we are passing legislation that it actually does make clear and does not in in inadvertently confuse things. Um, this bill is also not part of an isolated effort, but rather it is part of an overall approach, which I would argue is is stifling every day Arkansans from participating in the process rather than us focusing our
efforts on making sure that those people who are acting for money who are coming in from out of state, etc. etc. etc. are constrained. We are constraining the very people who the constitutional allowance for direct democracy was meant to protect and meant to empower. So I would urge you to vote against this bill as it stands right now, and to stand with the people of Arkansas who are by
constitutional right, empowered with providing a check and balance on the system and the use of volunteers to be able to do that is one that we should work very diligently to protect, and we should err on the side of protecting their rights rather than on the side of constraining
them. Thank you, Doctor Scho. Are you willing to take a question? Yes, Senator Hammer, you're recognized.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:13:13
Thank you. If I understood your testimony just now, the current law. has created confusion in the
field, and I think you were used the word confrontation. So your position is that the current law as it is written now is creating controversy and contention. Out in the field. Did I misunderstand your testimony?
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:13:35
Well, perhaps I, I didn't phrase it well, Senator Hammer, because that was not my intention. So thank you so much for the opportunity to clarify that. What I was referring to is that overall there is confrontation that occurs, right, in, in the signature collection process and
when the rules, and I apologize if I, if I attend, if my testimony tied it
Speaker 420
2:13:57
directly to this issue. I apologize for that. I meant in general when the rules are unclear.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:14:03
clear I didn't take your testimony that way. I took your testimony before you went into the latter part of your testimony attacking the overall concept, which is your opinion, your view that you are making statements about this bill and the content of this bill that the controversy is out there, so you were mistaken when you said that then.
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:14:25
I wasn't mistaken. I maybe didn't phrase it and the way that I had intended, sir. My intention was to say that when we attempt to over clarify or be very specific, such as listing food and the reimbursement of expenses, which we're doing in this bill that sometimes that sort of constraint adds to the confusion rather than mitigates the confusion and what
we have seen in the past election cycle was that There is oftentimes confusion that breaks down into confrontation, which I think we should
Speaker 422
2:15:04
try to avoid. Well, and I would argue that part of
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:15:09
what we're trying to do here is clarify and bring And understanding to
remove the confusion, which a lot of that bases a lot of that, I think, goes back to who's doing the training and how much in the training are they actually telling people what the law
says, whether that's because the trainer themselves don't know or they pick and choose to tell, and that that's You know, who really knows unless you're in that situation, and
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:15:37
Senator Hammer, I agree with you on that point. You know, the training, I think, is very critical and having uniform policy and that is that is published by the Secretary of State that allows us to have consistent training. I completely would support that. That's consistent with my overall request of all of you that we spend more money and
more initiative and time on training and education. OK, well, while y'all are in agreement, let's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:16:07
let Senator Clark get a question now. OK, I think I have 2. Uh, one is when you use. The word confrontation because I'm confused too. When you use the word confrontation, and I understood it to be that there was confrontation over Expenses, etc. that have to do with this bill. What, how did
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:16:32
you, how were you using the word confrontation. Thank you, Senator Clark, and um may I, may I give an example, and this is just OK, but this would be It's very difficult because in order for me to give an example, I almost have to give like a hypothetical if this law were in place, but what we saw, so what we saw during the last collection process was that when there was Um A concern that something wasn't
being done correctly, right? Or because there had been differences and interpretation. There are differences in in the approach. There's differences
in the philosophy that it would become very much about, oh, I'm going to film you. Oh, I'm going to take care of this. Oh, you can't do that. It got to be this very aggressive form of questioning. So what I'm saying is that when we have things like, for example, food listed specifically in this bill. What I'm worried about is I'm worried about the the BQC
coming up and saying, or or saying the sponsor coming up and saying, here's some water because it's 95 degrees and it's the middle of August, right? And here's water for you, our volunteers, while you're collecting signatures and to have someone who is in an opposition group because that is possible, right? There there is a registration of opposition groups calling that into question, creating confusion, right? Using that as a way to disrupt the process of collecting
signatures. I'm, I'm worried about that. I'm concerned about that and I'm concerned about
how that affects the 12:30. I just need to say, and then we'll
go on to his second question. We're gonna have to limit our responses to something concise. We've got 3 or 4 more people want to speak on this bill and, and we want to get the answers questions in, so just try to keep answers concise, move along, we're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:18:30
getting down to the last 2025 minutes here. When you mentioned direct democracy, the
direct democracy is for Arkansans, not for people outside the
state, correct? Thank you. Thank you, Senator Clark. Any more questions for Doctor Shope? Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony. Next on the sheet here. JP Tyndall. Tendon Not sure I've got this right. OK. Kimberly Witherspoon.
And you're here to speak against the bill. Come on around and take a seat. Introduce yourself, and you'll
be recognized. Yeah, please turn your microphone on, scoot it close. You can pull it towards you. It's not anchored, the
Speaker 432
2:19:40
microphone, pull it right there you go. Is it on? Oh, OK. So my name's Kimberly Witherspoon.
Speaker 434
2:19:47
I'm here against this bill on behalf of myself as a volunteer and I volunteered for the Arkansas abortion amendment basically from the entire time it was a ballot question. When I read, and I'm a, I'm a retired attorney. I would just like to say, so when I read the statute,
both just as a volunteer and as a lawyer, I don't find it to be. finding for me personally, or for other volunteers because it's, it's confusing. There are some words where we talk about, you know, we enumerate some specific things like food and water, but when you are defining a paid canvasser as someone who in exchange, I'm concerned about that. If I'm sitting at a tent. At a parking lot. With another person and people are coming to sign and there's a
line of people and so it could it be in exchange for them approaching your volunteer, this is great. It's 104 degrees out here. Let me sign. And this then happened to me personally. I became ill to over 100 degrees, and I had to sit down and I needed assistance from someone who had just signed. Who had a half a bottle of water, which would be something worth some amount of money in my situation it was who gave it to me because I was having a medical issue, so is that then me accepting something of value
in exchange for them for volunteering and giving them an opportunity to review and possibly sign the petition. And also, when we're talking in here about, um, About gas and travel expenses and I believe Mr. Cox spoke about almost like that would be a vacation and I would just like to point out that as a volunteer, I paid for my own t-shirt. I paid for my own gas to travel all around the state. I paid for my own food. I paid
for my own lawn chair and my own umbrella, and I sat in 100 degree heat for hours and hours and hours in a day, and that is not a vacation. And so to even suggest that I The volunteer gets something out of that beyond just, you know, with the abortion at least we didn't have the money to provide all of those things to our volunteers. I know some of the others did, but, but we did not. And so I would just like to clear that up, and I, I feel like when we're talking about,
it's not clear to me, a paid canvasser when they're paid. So is the exchange or the transaction between a a company who hires and, you know, Lets their paid canvassers go collect signatures, or is that an organization um Who it's not paid, who is, and it's not even the ballot question committee. It's someone who, like I said, comes up and who is it that the compensation is from? Is it from a volunteer
who says you're doing a great job. You're having a blood sugar issue. It's 104 degrees. Here's the candy bar and a half bottle of water, and they've just signed, but that's after they've signed, so I don't see how that contributes to a fraud problem from a volunteer perspective because if they've signed something and it's 14 degrees and I either need a bottle of water or they want to give me a bottle of water, or where is it defined between someone who signed. That's their
opportunity rather than, you know, and obtaining the signature, so I'm not being paid to obtain the signature. This sounds like I'm being paid for um as paid by a company, I should say. This sounds like anyone providing a volunteer with anything would then switch them to position. where they've gone now from a volunteer to a paid camper because someone came up and I and gave me a bottle of water, for example, I didn't know that something like that and it says, you know, in the definition that
we're that down here adding, you know, reimbursements for expenses, bonuses, but we go down here and it talks about other payments associated with soliciting. OK, other payments and payments has kind of been described. So, where does that, that does include. Um, just about anything. I don't think it's specific, and I would also like to point out that if that were to happen, and I think it might be unintentional just for clarity purposes, but if I go from a volunteer canvasser to a paid canvasser because I've
accepted something of value, a bottle of water, then do, is it a full stop for me? Like does their signature not count who just signed? Do I have to stop right then and not get signatures from the rest of the people in line because I've accepted a bottle of water accidentally, not realizing that I was being a precompensated or reimbursed or paid for that signature because I, I accepted something value, is that what happens? I mean, does it say in the bill. Does it say that I would then have to stop.
Do my affidavit, sign as a paid canvasser, goes through training, get a background check, and then I could continue volunteering, or does that mean that just that signature wouldn't count or would it be the whole page and that I couldn't proceed from that moment until I had to get back to Little Rock and go through a week's procedure of meeting all the requirements for a paid canvasser. Does it devalue that whole sheet or just that signature? Well, we're not answering your
questions. You're giving testimony, we need to move along or or other people are not gonna get, OK, then I would just like to say I think that some of these terms that are in the statute like um in exchange for in exchange from a paid canvassing company or in exchange from someone who was appreciative that we're out in Newport in 104 degree heat collecting signatures. Thank you for letting us have this opportunity. Exchange between who? The volunteer and someone who signs. Or the volunteer or paid person
who is actually signature for signature. And so it doesn't say from whom or what has to be exchanged, and then there's been some talk of litigation, so I'm a volunteer and there's someone there that's observing volunteers and there becomes a question of whether I accepted something of value after the signature, and it's been talked about litigation. Who bears the responsibility of paying for that to go to court and somehow try to prove or disprove. of what a volunteer who's not sat down and necessarily read
all these definitions applies. There the the ballot question committee pay those legal expenses? Does the volunteer pay the legal expenses if it becomes a question. What is the outcome if that happens. If the signature doesn't count. It was also mentioned there was a possibility of criminal responsibility for something like this, but it does not enumerate. Is that a misdemeanor? Is that a felony? What is the crime? And then I have to go and defend myself. And pay as the volunteer who now
did something wrong. I have to go pay, and that just seems really overbearing to me and To not define litigation when it doesn't even say what the consequences are, um, if someone accepts something. So, and I said, I know it says a value, but I accept a signature. Like I said, this happened to me and then I became ill and I needed, I need the we were somewhere I only had one person with me. It was rural, so people that were there gave me something with sugar in it and gave me some water. Someone else observing that.
could argue that because it's not clear, it's, it's just not clear whether it has to be for my company, like a paid canvasser or whether it can be the ballot question committee or co-volunteer because it is an exchange for a signerspoon, we need you to wrap this up, OK, what I need is clearly definition, organization receives an item from who, um, in exchange, are we talking about transactional that once they've signed, then they can give me a bottle of water cause it's hot and Somehow that contributes to
fraud. I don't see how that after they've signed, how do they, if it's not clear who the question or who's paying them or who's responsible or they're a volunteer, then how does that even work out, um, so I, I don't see, you know, that there's a loophole from who receives something of value. This creates more questions, frankly, for me, then I do believe I agree that some of these things are excellent, but when you go from, um, not directly, but when you talk
about there being a paid canvasser and then you go down to um a petition. It is also one more question that's not defined solicitation. If I'm sitting at a tent with a banner that says Arkansas Abortion Amendment signed here with a t-shirt that I paid for, is that soliciting if I'm at a farmer's market and I'm offering people the opportunity and I've got signs and banners under some circumstances that could be soliciting, but it's not defined or is that saying, hey, hey, let me speak with you for a moment if you have time.
Is that what soliciting is? So I was just like the committee to consider. Either broadening the definition or Being more specific and also if there's potential criminal liability for violating this, then that needs to be somewhere so that people who are volunteers understand what criminal liability they're exposed to before just saying you could get in trouble. I think it should be listed what that trouble would be is that that signature doesn't count? Is
it a criminal problem? Do we have to stop counting right then because I've become paid and
I need to be trained to do an afidavit. I don't mean to be rude, but you're depriving everybody
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:29:47
else of having a chance to talk. Appreciate it. Motion Clark, you're motion limited to this would be limited to 3 minutes per person. I'm sorry my first time. Oh, you
did well. It's just we have time constraints. We have to be on the Senate floor in a little bit, and we have to have time for discussion in the committee. Thank you.
So next we have, oh, we have a motion on the floor and a second to limit debate to 2 or 3 minutes. 2 would be fine with 2 minutes and then that way we have time for questions. Senator Hammer. How many are on the list. I think there are Now, this is not debatable by I can answer this question, can I? OK, just a couple of 3. Uh, it's not debatable all in favor of the motion, say aye.
Ah. Any opposed? Motion carries. OK, next presenter is.
Kwami Abdul Bay. You'll be recognized as soon as you sit down
and introduce yourself, the time will start, you'll have 2 minutes and then if you're willing, we can have questions from committee members. Is No, when you introduce yourself.
Speaker 446
2:31:13
I'm going to try to be quick. I know
Speaker 139
2:31:17
you guys need to be someplace else, uh, yes, sorry, Kwame Abdul Bay with for our kids BQC. I'm here to speak against this bill, this bill muddies the waters as far as actually what a volunteer uh is and is not, uh, when you look at the bill, this bill
would be actually really good if you just took out the payment for food, payment for lodging, payment for travel expenses and reimbursement for expenses if you just took that out, it would be a good. Bill and I would support it. What it does here is, is it, it opens up. An opportunity for petition blockers to police a petition signature gathers and uh there
is no due process within this bill to give people an opportunity to really, uh, define what they are doing is, is, is it a reimbursement for their labor because that's what the soliciting and obtaining signatures is that's their But if I am feeding someone in appreciation for their volunteer service because I don't believe people should do things for free.
But if I'm giving them pizza because I appreciate the time and effort, not because they're collecting signatures, but because they're fellow Arkansans that volunteered their time and they could be elsewhere. That's what The problem is with this bill, so I want us to all value the labor of Arkansans, and this doesn't value the labor of our candidates. What it does is it creates situations that we don't
need to get into. So if you take out those 4 things, it's a great bill, and I'm for it if you leave those four things in, I'm against it because it's very problematic and it gives petition blockers too much power over those that are collecting signatures. Great job. 2 minutes and
6 seconds. Sent Hammer, do you have a question? Yes, I do.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:33:34
Thank you. You know, I guess there's a difference in opinion what volunteer is because Everything I've ever done in the way of volunteer. And I've done some pretty heavy things in the way of volunteer.
I never expected payment because I'm volunteering. We are in essence defining you in these testimonies saying I volunteer, but I expect to be and to me they're two separate issues. So let me ask you just I agree with that 100% for a discussion and reaction purposes, not that I would. But to protect what is a volunteer versus going over the line of being a volunteer and being a paid person if on those items you said to take out of
the bill. If I went in there and I said, OK, Up to $100. Could you go with that? When you say up to $100 to a total of $100 on those items that you said you wanted to out the bill because otherwise, People are going to say, You know, lodging and they might go get somebody a motel for $1500. What if there was a
Speaker 139
2:34:40
dollar? OK, I understand what you're saying. Yeah, yeah, I definitely would agree if you could put a value on it because once you go over that certain
value, definitely that it's no longer appreciation for them volunteering, I agree with that statement. All
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:34:58
right, thank you. Uh, Senator Tucker. I just want to make sure I understood you
Speaker 453
2:35:03
when you said those 4 items, you're talking about A, B, C, and D, food, lodging on the local option and then when you go down
to the statewide option, it's lines 24, 25, 26, and 2788. Thank you, Mr. Abbot. Any other questions? OK, Sandra Clark.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:35:22
The does this in your opinion, uh apply to petition blockers also. No, it
Speaker 139
2:35:31
does not. It doesn't mention petition blockers at all because it talks about the uh Signatures, the soliciting for signatures, petition blockers, they do not petition, uh, they do not solicit signatures. So therefore, petition blockers can be given food, lodging, travel
expenses, and expenses related to their blocking the petition. I'm glad you brought that up. I wasn't even thinking about that.
Speaker 446
2:36:02
Try to be fair. I appreciate that. I've seen that you've
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:36:05
been fair in a lot of these hearings. The I think I would have a problem with B coming out, and again, I can see how B can be
Speaker 438
2:36:16
coming out. Uh, the payment for lodging how it can be legitimate, but I can also I agree with that we've
Speaker 139
2:36:24
we've never done any lodging, but like if we have someone that uh if we need help at an event in Fayetteville, uh, and we need to send somebody, some volunteers to Fayetteville, uh, you know, we would reimburse
Speaker 459
2:36:38
them for their gas to go to Fayetteville.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:36:42
Well, and that would bring me to see is reimbursement for Fuel would be the exception, uh, that I would
would be in agreement on. I agree with that too and the $100 Center Hammer hit on was exactly what. I thought I had, and I know that you're not necessarily thinking about changing anything. But,
uh, appreciate the point you made. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Dodson has a question. Senator Hammer has a question. We are going to consider this by 1 o'clock one way or the other, so set her off and you recognize her a question. Mine's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:37:19
more of a point of clarification, I believe we passed a piece of legislation a couple of years ago that
But blockers with the same requirements as paid canvassers. So by changing this definition, it would apply to blockers as
Speaker 338
2:37:34
well. I believe. Could be wrong on that, but I think that would certainly we would want that to be the case, OK, Senator Hammer, you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:37:44
have a question? Senator Tucker If we're talking about and I agree that lodging lodging can be, you know, it could get excessive. I,
I hesitate when we put specific dollars into code because the value of the dollar changes over time. Maybe a good
thing to tie if we're talking about it, a good thing to tie it to would be the amount that a legislator who lives more than 50 miles from
the state capital gets for an overnight stay. That way it'll change over time. It's equal with the
Speaker 139
2:38:12
legislators get, so that might be a good threshold, yes, and towards your point, I have asked the General Assembly over The last 3 legislative sessions to let's move this to the administrative procedures Act in this create administrative rules instead of statutes for all of this stuff and when you're doing administrative rules, you're
Speaker 462
2:38:29
able to be flexible like the gentleman before said that doing these
statues, you, you do not have that flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Abdulbay. Appreciate your testimony
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:38:41
today. Oh, we have one more question. Did I understand you correctly that you
Speaker 138
2:38:46
reimbursed people for driving to Fayetteville. No, I said I would. I've, I've never reimbursed anybody. I said
Speaker 453
2:38:52
I would do that. If I was sending someone,
if I was sending a volunteer to Faye.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you again. I'm sorry, Ms. Taylor, we are, we don't have enough time to to hear you. Uh, we're going to need to move for immediate. No, not immediate consideration. Call the question. So Oh OK, Senator Henry, you can close real quick. That's fine.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:39:22
A couple of things real quick. Number one, I think the committee's been taking down some rabbit holes. I think also I understand after today why
there's confusion out in the field. Secondly, currently the law says that you can't as a paid cava or do certain things. What this law does is bring clarity to those certain things, and so with that, Mr. Chairman, I think we've beat this
one enough, and I'm going to make a motion to pass. I have a motion in a
second. Any discussion, dots in first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:40:01
I continue to have issues with this the broadness of this and I think I can probably support it if Some changes are made specifically with relation to on page one deleting lines of 31 through 35, and then on line 30, the without limitations. And then on page 2, Line 23, the deleting the but is not limited and deleting lines
24 through 28. I think it's a pretty good idea to have this clarification, but this goes a little bit too far without some of those changes. I may even be open to modifying it to where we're defining it for reimbursement for lodging and that sort of thing, but as it stands today on this, I'm, I can't support the bill and wanted to let everybody know why. Senator Clark. Discussion Uh,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:41:04
already heard the couple of things that I would like to see changed. They're much smaller than Central Dodson's, uh. But I have confirmed that this does apply to both sides equally, so whatever it did, it would uh if it hurts one side, it hurts the other. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 338
2:41:21
Tucker. I'll be brief. I agree with Senator
Speaker 467
2:41:28
Dodson. Wow. Y'all get that on tape.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:41:36
Mr. Chairman, any further discussion Hammer. I'm going to pull the bill down. Because we got, we
got room for some agreement with, we have a motion on the floor in a second. OK. Do you want to withdraw your motion to pass? I, I'll withdraw my motion do pass and as
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:41:53
long as I can come back to Monday
after, uh, and I'll work on some uh. Maybe after we have some further discussions, let's do that. I'll withdraw the motion. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 58
2:42:11
Well, that was a real, that was a real banging right there.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
SB410 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR FORMER STATE EMPLOYEES AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS.
SB469 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTY CAMPAIGN POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB471. A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS TO USE THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT.
SB479 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY TO PRESENT IDENTIFICATION.
SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING ROOMS, AND SLEEPING QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX.
SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF STATE PROCUREMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR VERIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS.
HB1693 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO PROMULGATE RULES REGARDING THE DUPLICATION OF DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS.
HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER.
SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SB510 J. Boyd TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
HB1637 Ray CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES AND LEGISLATIVELY REFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Mar 20, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 8
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 27
Speaker 29
Speaker 36
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 49
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 62
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 88
Speaker 98
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 139
Speaker 145
Chair
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 158
Speaker 161
Speaker 166
Speaker 170
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 120
Speaker 186
Speaker 3
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 210
Speaker 212
Speaker 222
Speaker 227
Speaker 240
Speaker 239
Speaker 244
Speaker 245
Speaker 248
Speaker 249
Speaker 263
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Speaker 266
Speaker 23
Speaker 84
Speaker 194
Speaker 156
Speaker 52
Speaker 291
Speaker 292
Speaker 231
Speaker 303
Speaker 153
Speaker 150
Speaker 309
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 314
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 329
Speaker 341
Speaker 95
Speaker 343
Speaker 24
Speaker 200
Speaker 168
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 121
Jerry Cox
Unverified
Speaker 381
Speaker 390
Speaker 400
Speaker 403
Speaker 405
Gail Choate
Unverified
Speaker 420
Speaker 422
Speaker 432
Speaker 434
Speaker 446
Speaker 453
Speaker 438
Speaker 459
Speaker 338
Speaker 462
Speaker 138
Speaker 467
Speaker 58