State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (46)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB469
· 6 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
· 5 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
· 4 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 |
|
SB398
· 3 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. |
|
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. |
|
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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
quorum i'm going to call this
Speaker 2
0:02
meeting to order um first up are the pages
Speaker 3
0:08
in here not saying i'm okay well let's let's skip on
Speaker 8
0:16
that all right um there they are stand up stand up all right we got miss uh arlie pridmore sylvan hills high School, Senator English, Trent
Armstrong, Senator Hill, Sidney Pippins, Hall High School,
my grandmother's all in the matter, Senator Tucker, and Adelaide Ekman, Mount St. Mary,
Senator Tucker. We're happy to have you all here today. Thank you. All right. Let's see here. Senator
Speaker 8
0:52
Tucker, are you going to run a couple of bills for Senator Irvin,
I believe? Okay. Just one. Is that going to be 439 or?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04
508. Okay. 508. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 508. This is fixing something that happened earlier this session. If you look on page 1, line 31 of the bill, the first bill wrote per month and it was intended to say
per meeting. It's just making that little tweak. That's it.
It's on page 2, line 1 also. Simple enough. All right, members, any questions for Senator Tucker? Say none. I don't have anybody set up to speak for or against this. No, I do. Let me get to the bill.
Speaker 27
2:22
waiting on you sir so if i'm on the right bill 398 right
Chair
Unverified
2:32
nope 508 508 i'm then i'm go ahead all
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:37
right this is something i'm carrying this is something i'm running for senator
urban yeah yeah yeah this is a good non-controversial bill there's okay so uh don't have anybody speak for against this um senator sure you're recognized to close your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Make
a motion to pass. Second by Senator Payton. Any discussion? See you not. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Bill passes. Thank you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:02
All right. I will hereby pass over Senate Bill 398. So now we're
Speaker 36
3:05
there and I got to go back. All right. Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:17
Penzo. When you say simple, non-controversial, you know the chair is
a little skeptical. All right, Senator, you're recognized to introduce yourself and proceed with your bill.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
3:29
What bill are you running? Well, if I'm going to stick to my word, we're going to do 469. Okay, 469. Yeah, 468 might be controversial, so we'll hold that off. Okay. I might need more people here. Yeah, I'd need more people for that one. So Senate Bill 469 is pretty simple. that just strikes $5,000 and puts $10,000 for amount of... Yeah, we've got to adopt this
Speaker 49
3:53
amendment here real fast. Members, all this does is add Representative Beatty as the House
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:58
sponsor, so take a motion to adopt.
I move the motion. Motion seconded by Senator
Dotson. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, amendment has been adopted. Senator, you're recognized to proceed with
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:10
Senate Bill 469 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so like I was saying, all this does is move the cap from $5,000 to $10,000 for county committee
Speaker 52
4:21
contributions. Wow. I told you. We'll see if it's not controversial. Senator Tucker. Is that what they're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:26
giving out or what they're taking in? That's on the receiving end?
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:31
That's on the county can receive no more than $5,000 right now. This moves it to where they can't. They can
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:38
take $10,000 per year from one person.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:42
From one person, correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Constituent asked me to
Speaker 8
4:48
do this and told them it wouldn't. - Right, anybody else? All right, Senator Sullivan,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
4:52
where can I ask for questions? - So just to make sure I understand it, so an individual could donate five and now they can donate $10,000.
- That's correct. - So some of these groups that have multiple PACs, anybody that might have multiple PACs, it would be 10,000 per PAC. - Well, this is for a county political party, the county committees. a PAC could donate. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, my fault. I'm sorry. A PAC could, if you have five PACs, you could donate $50,000 to the county committee. I guess, I mean,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
5:25
I don't know if Clerk, Senator Tucker could clarify on that. He probably knows more about that than I do, but
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
5:34
I would make that assumption. They're essentially
an individual, a PAC is, and so they could donate. And we do have a number of groups that have multiple PACs. Okay. And 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 PAC is an individual and PACs can now donate $10,000 per PAC.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
6:04
All right. Senator Payton. That's my assumption. It says from any person. It doesn't say individual. that says the word is person. So I don't know, you know, that's why I said Tucker can probably answer this better than I can 'cause words do matter. And to my understanding was-- - All right, we're gonna let Super, see
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
6:24
if he can-- - Much as I trust the Senator, I wanna hear it from the Attorney General's office or someone or the folks that understand this.
I don't wanna 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 my concern. My intent is person 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 confirmation of that from officials. Senator Flippo, is there anybody here that could answer that question? Don't send by for the AG's office. Senator Payton, you want to chime in?
Thank you. I'd just 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 candidate. So being able to funnel large amounts of money to a candidate is a problem. But just like PACS, 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 PAC. But what we've traditionally tried to keep a tight rein on is a large sum of money being able to be funneled to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
7:57
a single candidate. Does that make any sense? It does. My concern is
if we have county committees that all of a sudden have a lot of money They can support more candidates, maybe not one candidate anymore, but now 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 multiple PACs if they're motivated to do that, storing a lot of money in those county committees. And my experience in the last couple of years is those county committees, I'm not sure that I trust them to have that much money funneling into elections.
Well, and I think we share some of the same concerns.
My concern is that individual could form five PACs, just as you alluded to, or 10. And each one of those PACs could put the maximum amount to one candidate, so you have a single person ultimately going to a single candidate through multiple PACs. 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 PACs and then direct the maximum contribution to one candidate, but that's just my opinion. Thank you. Yeah, I think, Mr.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
9:31
Chair, I'm debating, discussing the motion to pass. We don't have a motion on the floor. Okay, yeah, we don't have a motion on the floor yet, though, Senator
Speaker 83
9:38
Tucker. We're going to ask for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:43
Chair. I'm just, I have the definition pulled up, and I'm
not arguing with you. I don't have really a dog on the flight. I share some of your concerns, and I share some of Senator Payton's perspective as well,
but just for what it's worth, a person in this code section that 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 is a defined term for approved political action
committee. Prohibited political action committee. So I don't see a political action committee included in the definition of person. Again, I'm not engaging in a debate on it. I'm just
helping clarify for the sake of the discussion. Thanks, Senator. All right. Members, are there questions for
Speaker 8
10:48
Senator Penzo? All right, seeing no further questions, we don't have anybody to
sign up to speak for against this. Senator, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
11:00
Well, even when I think something's non-controversial, it ends up being controversial. You really got
to quit saying that. No, I mean, like I said, the constituent reached out to me and asked. He wanted to give more than $5,000 to the county committee to help him out, so I told him I'd
run the bill for him. So I'd just ask for a good vote. All right, members, I've heard an explanation
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
11:26
of the bill. Senator's closed. Do I see a motion? Got a motion to pass, Senator Dotson.
Second, Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? As amended. Got a motion to pass as amended. Second, Senator Payton. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
11:45
Aye. Opposed? No. Congratulations. Bill passes. Thank you, committee. And I'll hold off
on 469 just because I told somebody. I made all the amendments that were discussed on the floor, but I'm not going to ask for a vote today. Yeah, are you talking about 468?
I'm sorry, yeah, 468. Just to talk about it real quick, if the chair will allow me, but I don't want to ask for a vote today because I told the opposition I wouldn't run it. But I made all the corrections that are a lot of the concerns that were made on the floor addressed in it. And if you all want to look at that, I'll come back and keep to my word that I wouldn't run it today. So thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right. Senator Johnson, you guys want to run?
Speaker 98
12:33
Where are you running? I'll take Senator Mark. I'll do you. Go ahead. Come on. Is it non-controversial? What did you run in, Senator Johnson? House Bill 1637, Mr. Chair. All right, members, House Bill 1637.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
13:05
Introduce yourself and you're recognized to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. House Bill 1637
is longer than it should be because it had to cover several different section codes. Let me just basically say what it does is it would require when an initiated or referred constitutional amendment was certified for the ballot,
Well, I'm not sure which one comes first, but it would require DF&A to do a fiscal impact of the amendment and would also require that that summary, and it's limited to, I'm gonna 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 in.
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 would affect a tax
or a tax would have to be raised or lowered. It could go both directions. It could have a positive fiscal impact. But this would be shown to the voters when they saw that on the ballot. And certainly, I hope they look at that before they get in the polling place. But that's a summary of the bill. I'll try to answer any questions as far as the details of it. But the idea is that when we vote on different measures, we may have 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 and 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, number of different explanations. Got questions. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Johnson, would the fiscal impact be included on the ballot?
Yes, sir, and that's why I had to be limited to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
15:49
that. And I think I noticed in here that it's going to require fiscal impact on anything referred by the legislature. It would be both, it would be equal on those that were doing an initiative
and those of us that are referring one. 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 there might be no fiscal impact. Some things aren't involving money, but it would be a good faith effort of DF&A
to provide an unbiased fiscal impact. Okay, so one more question.
Do you know whether or not a fiscal impact, say, if we have a bond measure and issuing $500 million worth of bonds, would the fiscal impact reflect $500 million
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:39
or all of the finance costs with
that? Senator, that's an excellent question, and I'm not quite sure. Now, DF&A could probably separate those and answer that question fairly succinctly because—
I would prefer that when we talk about bond measures, that we talk about the true cost instead of just the principle. Well,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
17:03
let me clarify, Senator. I'm not so sure that the measures such as we debated on the floor yesterday about 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, And now they can look and say, this is $500 worth of bonds.
Maybe we should include that in this bill. Well, I would have never thought about that. 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 asking for opponents. I understand. 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 be 20 or 30
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:15
percent 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 a revenue bond. But the fact of the matter is usually on bond issues, the proceeds from the bonds pay the bond counsel 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. 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 think. We may have strayed a long way from this. I know that, but the point is that to the extent possible, DF&A 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, positive impacts, I don't think. But they would have, at least to the extent possible,
better education on what they were voting on. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the committee? All right, Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:49
Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a similar line of questioning that Senator Payton just asked, and the way I was going to phrase it is, we
know that DF&A, their scoring is static, not dynamic. And
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:03
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. Like in U.S. Congress, they
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:16
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 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 not familiar with DF&A's physical impact statements in the way that we are, and they
walk into a ballot and they see this fiscal impact statement, it's the first time they've ever seen something like that, that it might be
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:57
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, in the past, have felt that DF&A scoring was, and I don't want to say biased, but as you said, it's static. It doesn't, for example, if 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 generated from it. But to the extent that they can do this in the period amount of time, I think that, you know, and again, anyone that's sponsoring an example of an initiated measure 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 $200,000 or $300,000, it seems like. but what we didn't mention that it would now allow Arkansas to get coin and coin 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 in the static revenue loss, 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 you're making that argument
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:32
on the floor to your colleagues, right? But right as they're voting on the
measure. I will be glad to try to do that. No, no, no, no, that's not my question. My question is, in the example that you just gave, you had, and I'm not being critical of DF&A because they do the job that we've asked them to do. If there's any criticism, if we're unhappy with what they're doing, that's on us, not on them, because they're doing what we asked them to do. But in 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 in the example that you cited, it was up to you to convince your colleagues that the benefit, that the pros outweighed the cons, right? Yes, sir. And you made that case to your colleagues on the floor of the Senate as they were voting on it. Yes, sir. And is there a similar opportunity for ballot measure sponsors to make that case with the public as they cast their votes
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
23:34
in the same way that there is in the legislature? It wouldn't be necessarily in this, although let me say that we have come a long way with getting DF&A to look at a more dynamic analysis of the measures because we want to know as legislators what the real long-term effect, not just a static number based on what last year's revenues on that particular tax were, for example. That's not perfect. It's a process.
Your question is spot on, and I agree, and I would hope that they could put in their statement, again, the 100 words of what it would be, not just a number that's gonna cost this much or it's gonna get this much in new revenue, but actually would be able to implement it 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. DF&A is good with this and says 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 dynamic. Sometimes there are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:01
ballot measures that require the legislature to pass laws to implement them.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
25:06
So how would this work in that context? Well, the bill kind of speaks for itself. Let me read from it, if I could,
Senator. It says that the referral to DF&A, I'm sorry my phone keeps skipping to the next page without
me warning. It says that 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 a dollar amount showing the estimated
amount of a 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. And it also would, it says 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. Okay. And if I could add one thing, Senator Tucker. 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? I'm sorry? That's in the
Speaker 98
27:14
bill? That's in the bill, yes sir. Alright. Seeing no for questions, we do have somebody sign up to speak against this. Kwame Dubé.
Speaker 136
27:32
Thank you. Introduce yourself, tell us your words for the
Speaker 139
27:41
record, and then you'll be recognized and proceed. Hi, I'm Kwame Abdul-Bey. I am the campaign manager for For Our Kids, BQC. Excuse me. I am against this bill, and I represent three other organizations who have flipped and are now against this bill.
They were originally leaning towards being for the bill, and I'm going to tell you why we changed. When the bill was originally filed, 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, Representative David Ray, to discuss what we believe would be some really good amendments that would make it a totally uniform process and that would make it beneficial to the voters.
And I'm going to tell you the things that we suggested to him for amendments. Let me pull it up. All right. So one of the first things is what Senator Tucker just said. We definitely talked about the importance of the fiscal impact statement being something that had like a 25-year cost-benefit analysis where you're not only talking about the fiscal impact but the social impact as well.
When that was mentioned to the sponsor, the sponsor totally disagreed with that analysis and said that the static impacts, physical impact statement is all that's needed. So that was shot down as far as one of the suggested amendments. Another suggested amendment that we suggested was if you look at line, page two, line, page two, line 16, page two, line 16 does something
differently from the legislatively referred amendments and 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 asked is that that language be stricken and that DFA be the sole body to
determine whether or not those fiscal impact statements are necessary and keep it out of a political hand to make that determination. 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. The next amendment that we suggested is we suggested that.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
31:02
Mr. Graham, if you speak to this, your core objection to this bill and not the back and forth
Speaker 139
31:10
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's very clear. As far as what Senator Tucker was saying, that's another area that we're concerned about is that the fiscal impact statement needs to have a long-term dynamic cost-benefit analysis. That is not in this bill and we want you to vote against it because it's not in this bill.
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, page on the Secretary of State's website to put ballot initiatives on there, that this fiscal impact statement be put on that website instead of being put on the ballot, so as
not to, you know, create basically confusion from the electorate when they're at the ballot box. And that also gives an opportunity for any organization that may disagree with the fiscal impact statement to 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
if it's amended, we would definitely reconsider our objections. Great. Thank you very much. Members,
Speaker 145
33:22
are there any questions from the committee? All
Chair
Unverified
33:26
right. Seeing none, thank you for being
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
33:29
here, sir. All right, Senator Johnson, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman, let me point out the gentleman is correct that the attorney general would be making that referral to DF&A. However, the attorney general is already charged under the law with much responsibility for certifying ballot measures.
This is why it would be a waste of everybody's time if some ballot measure didn't meet those other requirements to then turn and ask DF&A to have to do a fiscal impact on something that hadn't passed the first couple of tests to move forward. So, yes, 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 DF&A. So 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 DF&A 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,
we've got a motion due passed by Senator Sullivan. I see a second. Second. Second by
Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Senator Tucker, recognized for discussion. Thank you. I'll be brief.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:24
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 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 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 in the public discussion on a website I think is a good thing. Having it on the ballot is a step too far 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. - Senator Hamer, recognized for discussion. -
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:28
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 a avenue to provide that to people. So I
think it would be a good thing for it. Thank you. - All right,
thank you. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. - Opposed? - No. - All right, didn't hear five votes. Sorry, your bill fails.
Speaker 161
37:11
Roll call. All right, call the roll. Senator Clark? Senator Clark, yes. Senator Hammer? Senator Hammer, yes. Senator Sullivan? Senator Sullivan, yes. Senator Tucker? No. Senator Tucker, no. Senator King? Yes. Senator King, yes.
Senator Dotson? Yes. Senator Dotson, yes. Senator Payton? No. Senator Payton, no. No,
Speaker 158
37:51
that's fine. All right, C5 votes. Bill passes. Thank you,
Speaker 166
37:59
ladies. All right. No. Everybody's got to say yes at the time, you know? Quiet doesn't count. I only heard two yeses.
Okay. One yeses are hard to do. Very hard, Senator Clark. All right. Next up, we're going to have Senator Blake Johnson, or Senator Kroll.
Speaker 170
38:16
I guess Blake's left. Where are you running, Steve? 1694. 1694. Senator
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
38:37
Steve Kroll, District 3. Everybody got it. This is a 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 five
people that are not doing it. After this cycle, three will be gone. One of the two that are 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 want to streamline everything so that they don't have to have so many staff dedicated to this. I will try and answer any questions. All right. Members,
Speaker 174
39:15
any questions from the committee? Yes. And what's the bill number?
1694. 1694, sir. Yes. This does what now? Requires them to file their
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
39:26
campaign finance reports online. Have they fixed their software? Yes. And in fact, in here, it says that they've got to have it better. You know, I'm paying somebody $50 an hour right
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
39:39
now, and it's getting real expensive that says they haven't fixed their software. I had a bill four 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. But it's, but we can't get it done. I've had, my wife has quit. My treasurer, 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 said they'd be glad to work with the Secretary of State to tell them what's wrong. But until they fix that, I don't know what, I don't know what to do.
I mean, my wife has been in tears after spending multiple hours, and it won't balance because their software doesn't work right. If somebody's here to tell us different, I'd love to hear them. I don't think
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
40:41
there is. I know the new system seems to work good for me
personally, but that's the new system that they just got
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:50
up this last year. Senator Johnson's daughter is telling me it doesn't.
Speaker 120
40:57
No, that's correct. All right, any other questions?
Speaker 186
41:11
All right, Senator Hammer. Thank you. Yeah, so, I mean.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:15
We're going to do Senator Hammer then. Yeah, there you go. Yeah, mine will be quick.
I was thinking we've already passed in law for this to be done, correct? Correct. Is there punitive action associated with years
that makes it different? No, we have not passed law that you
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
41:31
have to do it electronically, no. This will be the first
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:37
time that we have. What? Oh, I thought we did have a,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:41
I thought we did like three sessions ago. We did but you have an alternative that if you because our software didn't work we came back and amended it with an alternative that you didn't have to.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
41:53
And this also has the kiosk. They're having some kiosks downstairs so you can scan it in and that way
it makes it paperless. Okay. Okay. Thank
Speaker 3
42:03
you. All right. Thank you. All right. Senator King and Senator Dotson. Senator King. Okay.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
42:13
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 work far better than this system today. And then on debt retirement, they still have not, to my knowledge, got that updated where it has to be in written form. So does this, this is just campaign, not debt retirement? It's because last time I filed in debt retirement, they have to, you have to do it written because they don't have the system software updated to do debt retirement in electronic.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
43:05
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 sheet, the contribution, and the expenditures. Okay, so not debt retirement. Okay, well, I mean, I don't have
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
43:21
a problem with electronic, but when they have a horrible system, it's like very hard to just shut that off to that, even though I file electronically, so. All right, Senator Dotson.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
43:38
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 create the alternative that you see before us, because there were a lot of problems with the system. I know we've updated the system since then and it's less bad than it was before. I mean, I file electronically and still sometimes struggle with certain aspects of it. And it's a system that continuously
need some improvement to it but maintaining the electronic or the alternative option for some people which is very few right do that I think is necessary so I'm not supportive of
Speaker 207
44:23
this thank you. Thank you sir. Senator Tucker. This is all state
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:29
candidates? State and district. Okay
and what is this Who are district candidates? Good
Speaker 210
44:38
question. I just took it from the Senate.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:42
I'm just trying to figure out. So obviously I know it's legislators. It'll be people running for constitutional office. I assume people running for circuit
court judge and prosecuting attorney. But I'm just curious who else would apply to. So I don't know. Yeah. Okay, thanks. All right,
Speaker 212
44:56
thank you. Any other questions for the committee?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
44:58
All right. Senator Clark. Senator Crowell, we want to file electronically. We just want it to work right. How about I
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
45:08
have this idea? How about I make sure they come with me? I represent this so you guys can get some teeth into them.
That'd be a great idea. Sounds good. I'm going to pull it down then. I was holding mine
for discussion on motion. So here's the thing. I don't remember it was early on in my first term or two 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 checkbook, you know.
We're still going to keep track of it on paper. We have receipts. 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 do the alternative. So I can't support not having an alternative. Well, I think there's an
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
47:09
alternative. I'm actually trying to read it, but there's an alternative where they said the kiosk downstairs you can scan them in. If they're present at the Capitol. Correct, and I agree with you. So I think if you're okay 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. All right. Thank you all. Appreciate you not doing that before
Speaker 8
47:36
he came to committee, Senator Kroll. Really enjoyed the conversation. All right. Who have we got next?
Speaker 222
47:41
Senator Hammer. You've got two bills you're running? Yeah, I just wishful thinking on
my part. All right. Let's start with House Bill 1574.
And Senator, I'll let you get your bill ready and then introduce yourself
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:16
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 um who is domiciled or the definition of domiciled and also the definition of resident and that's what the bill does all right members for an explanation or any questions from
Speaker 227
48:48
members of the committee. All right, seeing no questions.
We do don't have anybody sign up speak for against this. Yep, not seeing it. All right, Senator Hamer, you recognize close your bill. Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:05
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 do pass. All
right, got a motion do pass. Senator Hamer, second Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say
aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Next up, we'll do House Bill 1693.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:24
1693. Could I get Chris with the election board? Come on up, Chris. Years long. Years long.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
49:38
Yeah, hey, Kim, would you like Senator Hammer if we just let Senator Johnson go? He's chairing the district of Commerce real quickly. Yeah, no, it
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:43
doesn't bother me a bit. Perfect. All right, thank you for the courtesy. All right, Senator
Speaker 239
50:02
Johnson. I have someone to come to the table. All right.
Speaker 240
50:09
And what bill are you running, Senator Johnson? Senate Bill 486. Senate Bill
Speaker 239
50:27
486, members. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21.
Speaker 244
50:32
Sarah Beth Nolan, I serve as legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, I'm here
Speaker 245
50:37
for questions. All right. Senate Bill 486 protects the physical privacy and safety of women and men in shelters, state
and local correctional facilities and all public buildings operated by a government entity. It applies to all public buildings, restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, shower rooms, and rooms for overnight stay. The bill defines sex. It 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
The bill also allows for a civil cause of action if these things are not done. I'd appreciate a good vote. All right, members, you've heard an explanation
of the bill. Any questions for the committee? Senator
Speaker 248
51:30
Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we heard what the bill does. Why are we
Speaker 245
51:37
doing it? Well, I wish we didn't have to do things like these. and people knew what bathroom to go to and where to sleep and how to stay separated.
Speaker 249
51:46
But in today's age, we just got to do those things now. So is
Speaker 245
51:52
there a pervasive problem with this happening? Well, I think there's a societal issue that we have to, for the safety of our
Speaker 249
52:00
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 bill. Well, I mean, there's examples of men
Speaker 245
52:14
being in women's restrooms and women playing in sports, and you've got to make accommodations,
and these things have to be dealt
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
52:23
with. Okay. In Arkansas? Where does this happen in Arkansas? I don't care. It ain't going to happen. That's why we're doing it. Okay. What is a congenital anomaly? Well,
Speaker 245
52:39
I mean, not all things are normal in sexual reproduction and whenever we're born. Those congenital nominates can happen in your
Speaker 249
52:50
DNA, but they are classified in science as either male or female.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
52:57
Okay. What is an intentional or unintentional disruption of the reproductive system? Well, that could happen in an accident
Speaker 245
53:05
where those are separated, or it could happen by surgery. Okay. Accident
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:16
being unintentional, surgery being intentional, I take it. Okay. Section 2 of the bill, what is a shelter? I
don't see where it's defined in the bill.
Speaker 263
53:32
I believe that the intent is to address domestic violence shelters, but there should be a
Speaker 244
53:47
it, but I don't see it in there. No, you're correct. There's not, but there should be one right after
Speaker 245
53:59
think it would be good to have that in there. I mean, it allows for emergency situations where if a city has a shelter and there's emergency situations, there's things that you can't do.
Speaker 266
54:15
But a shelter is generally understood. There are several
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
54:24
places in the bill, like Section 3, for example, is only for state correctional facilities. Yeah, and there's a section for local. Right. But we have sovereign immunity in Arkansas, and there's a provision where, not where the person can sue the person who is not in the bathroom that's been designated for them, but they sue the prison.
And so how can that be
Speaker 266
54:49
with sovereign immunity? I think that accommodation should be done by
Speaker 245
54:54
law. And if it's not done by our state and local facilities, then it allows for that correction. I'm sorry. I'm not following
Speaker 245
55:06
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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
55:16
Well, it's not a policy heartburn issue.
It's a constitutional issue. I don't think we should have sovereign immunity and 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 a heartburn about it or not, it can't be done under the current state of the state constitution. So I'm
Speaker 239
55:39
just... I think the process would be possible claims commission or something to go before us if it's not a court of law.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
55:48
And, you know, in other bills that we've seen where people can file claims against the state, it's laid
out specifically that you go to the Claims Commission and what the process for that is. And, you know, I don't see
that in here either. Right now, under the law, without this bill,
if a person goes into a bathroom, for example, and they're members of the opposite sex
or members of the same sex, and they expose themselves,
that's a crime under Arkansas law now currently, correct?
Speaker 266
56:23
Yeah, we've done that in the last few years also.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
56:27
I think that's been a crime for a long time, 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 something physically to another person against their will, That's
also a crime under current law without this bill, correct?
Speaker 84
56:50
All right, thank you. All right, Senator Hammer and Senator Sullivan. Senator Hammer,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
56:56
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. Okay, and I'm sorry, I did not hear your
Speaker 244
57:16
name and who you're with, please. Sarah Beth Nolan.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:18
I'm with Alliance Defending Freedom. Alliance Defending Freedom. Have you
vetted this as far as constitutionality? Yes, sir. I have.
Speaker 244
57:35
Has this been run in another state somewhere? It has. Has it been challenged in another state somewhere? It has. Has it been upheld? Several federal courts have upheld this. And this is patterned
Speaker 194
57:44
after what is already on the books for public K-12 in the state
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:48
of Arkansas. Okay, so outside of Senator Johnson, I'll 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. Okay, 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 member of the opposite sex
in the areas that are in here?
Speaker 156
58:31
That's what it is. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
58:37
I don't see any other questions. Senator Clark? Senator Johnson, would it surprise you that in a quick internet search, I found numerous cases that would
Speaker 239
58:50
be covered by this bill across the country? That would be great if you would just name, you know, for Senator Tucker.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
59:00
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. That comes out of El
Speaker 245
59:27
Cajun, California. Is that good enough? That's good enough. These protections, there's North Carolina, Tennessee,
Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas. We have done something previously. Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota has addressed it in two different sessions, Florida, Virginia, Utah, Alabama again, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming, and also Kentucky again. These protections have been afforded in other states.
Speaker 52
1:00:04
- All right, any other questions? See no more. - Do you have somebody sign up to speak? Let's see here. Dr. Choke,
Speaker 98
1:00:09
we'll start with you. It's time to speak against. - I'm sorry, it was not . - Okay, okay, I've got you on bill, not, no. Tiana, still. Just walk around here.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:00:38
All right, if you just have a seat and introduce yourself and tell us
Tian Estelle
Unverified
1:00:53
here whether to represent yourself and you'd be recognized. Proceed. Hello, my name is Tian Estelle and I am the policy coordinator for Intransitive. We are a Little Rock-based non-profit who serve trans people in Little Rock and all over the state, and I'm here today because I very strongly oppose SB-486,
Speaker 292
1:01:10
the 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 sleep in 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 refuse 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 deserve 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 two 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 face being unhoused and this bill would create even another barrier for the most vulnerable youth in my community to be able to seek shelter and
Tian Estelle
Unverified
1:03:24
services. This bill is unnecessary, completely unnecessary. There are not instances in Arkansas where trans
Speaker 292
1:03:31
people have caused violence in bathrooms, changing facilities. You're not finding it. There are no statistics about trans people being violent in our state or going into bathrooms. Those statistics, if you'll 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
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:04:04
time and consideration and no questions, please. - All right, thank you for your testimony. All right, Senator Johnson,
Speaker 225
1:04:24
you're recognized to close to your bill. - I'm
closed. - All right, Senator's closed. I'll see a motion. Motion do pass by Senator Sullivan, see a second. Second by Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:35
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I just want to address the constitutional issue
that you raised, Senator Hammer. I don't believe there's a constitutional issue, a U.S. 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 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-specific issue that hasn't been addressed in this bill.
There are other problems in the bill. They wanted to define 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 it's obviously going to do. But before we vote on it, I just want to say, number one, that 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 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've addressed these bills in past sessions, the prosecutors have come to the table. They're not in here right now because the state agency is 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 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 going to bring danger
to people. The other way this causes harm is 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 three 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 2021 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 coming back up Because we're still bullying a vulnerable community in Arkansas. We shouldn't be doing this. The law already handles the situation adequately under the criminal law.
And I'll be voting no. All right. Thank you. All right.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:08:14
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 pass all kinds of laws that are already covered and they kind of lay on top of each other. It doesn't mean they're bad laws or they don't help. They 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 or 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 it. I'll be voting for the bill. Thank you. All right. Any more discussion?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:09:29
Senator Clark. If there's any bullying being done, it's when we tell young women that a boy
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, et cetera. That's bullying. And the idea that the protection of those young women is bullying
is one of the most egregious things I've heard. I've heard it from the public, but
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:10:13
from a senator. All right. Any more
discussions? Seeing none. We've got a motion due pass by Senator Payton. Got a second by Senator Sullivan. All
in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. All right.
Let's see here. Senator Hammer, you want to come back up? And were we on
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:52
1693 there, Senator? Okay, 1693. House Bill 1693. Chris, come on back up. Thank you. And Chris, please. And I'm Kim Hammer, State Senator, District 16. Chris Madison, Director of the
Speaker 150
1:11:01
State Board of Election Commissioners. All right. Senator, you're going to ask proceed.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:05
Thank you. And I think I'll let go right to Chris for expediency. I think he can get
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:11:13
to the point quick and clean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1693 is a bill that come about based on, as we're conducting
our 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 a current law. And what this does is it allows them to report that number and then we'll adopt a 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.
Be glad to take any questions. All right, members, any questions? All right, I see no questions those Don't see my sign speak for or against
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:19
this and for hammer you recognize closed. Thank you. Thanks thorough Explanation gives all the answers to get a good vote. So with that I'd make a motion do
pass All right got a motion do pass Senator hammer is in
a second Second by Senator Clark any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye aye opposed Congratulations century your bill passes next up. We take Senate bill 472
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:38
I'm sorry, which one sir or For Senate Bill 479. 479. Concerning voter assistance. And
do we need introductions again or are we good? Kim Hammer, State Senator, District 16. Chris Madison, Director
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:13:01
of the State Board of Election Commissioners, and this is a state board-sponsored bill. Okay.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:13:06
And this bill has 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 okay, Mr. Chairman, he can get to it quick and clean.
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:13:21
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 assister. 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 or person assisting someone in 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 the 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 check-in clerk right at the front desk puts their name down because it's to verify their identity. If they have, like the example you gave was 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 I'm
Speaker 314
1:14:37
happy to answer any questions. All right, members, any questions?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:42
Senator Tucker. First of all, I just want to thank you 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. I sincerely appreciate that. And I also respect the fact that doing things in rule gives you a little more flexibility. But generally, and you and I discussed this before the committee meeting started, exactly what you just said, but generally the state board is going to create rules kind of with three classifications.
One is with an Amendment 1 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 third is if you don't have an ID, then you fill out a form to say that you are who you say you are. Those are the rules that the state board
is going to promulgate to start. That is correct. And that's
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:15:35
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 sister
Speaker 174
1:15:44
and just make sure that we have that information correct. Thank you very much. All right. Any other questions
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:00
from the committee? All right. Seeing none. Let's see here. Don't see anybody signed up to speak for or against this. Senator Hammer, your alert has to close. Thank you. I think it's been thoroughly explained, and with that,
I ask for a good vote, and with that, I make a motion do pass. I make a motion do pass. Senator Hammer, I see a second. Second by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator.
Your bill passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's do Senate
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:16:20
Bill 491. Senator Hammer, Senate Bill 491. I want to try to get these Senate
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:28
bills out, make sure we get these Senate bills out. In a nutshell,
what this bill does is that if there is a vendor that is providing information 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 to EBD. Navidus 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 Navidus 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 had another set of eyes on it. Otherwise, you've got, in this case, like the PBM, who owns the pharmacies, giving data information to EBD, but there's not a checks and balance between the two points, and we're gonna be making the 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 accurate, true.
There are safeguards that are built in here in order to protect that information so that it's not proprietary and all that kind of stuff. And that's what the bill is intended to do. All right, members, you've heard an explanation.
Any questions from the committee? All right, see no questions. We don't have anybody to sign up to speak for against this. Senator Hammer, you're recognized to close. Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:14
I've explained it and I believe it'd be a good thing for us to do to just kind of keep barriers where they need to be. And with that, I'll make a motion due pass.
a second, seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion? Seeing
none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator Hamer. Your bill passes. Senator, I'm going to ask you to step aside. Senator Boyd, you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:18:41
come up here. We're going to start knocking out some Senate bills here. Senator Boyd, you doing
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:18:46
Senate Bill 510? Yes, sir. All right. Recognize yourself and proceed with Senate Bill 510.
State Senator Justin Boyd, Fort Smith. Senate Bill 510. So in Fort Smith, there is basically a parking lot that the Choctaw Nation owns,
and 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 state trooper, any other law enforcement that comes up could not do anything about it. And so what this bill does is it allows cross-deputization between a tribal 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, members, heard an
explanation of the bill. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:19:51
I assume there's no federal law that we're violating by doing this cross-deputization? That's correct. But we do
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:19:56
need enabling legislation for it to happen in Arkansas. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:20:01
Payton, recognized for a question. Thank you, Senator
Boyd. 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, U.S. law, or is it the tribal law? Because will our officers know and understand what the tribal law is? And if an arrest is made, will they be going to a tribal court or to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:30
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. Okay. Are there any other
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:57
tribal lands in Arkansas? This is the only one I'm familiar with. So we've got one parking lot, but this is an important component. The city of Fort Smith has reviewed this. I understand that the state doesn't have
any concerns. Choctaw, they're aware that this is happening.
Everybody seems to be good. Okay, thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:21:22
All right, Sarah Clark. Okay. Is this to allow law enforcement should something happen on tribal land and they need help to summon other help, is this for a 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 above, or is this so
that federal, state, local law enforcement can work security for casinos? My
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:22:03
if we have a crime happening 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.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:20
Have we had instances of that happening and needing help? I'm not aware of
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:22:27
one, but I want to be proactive. 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,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:50
did I do something wrong? Will it do number three, which was allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to work security with their law enforcement.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:23:10
It allows them to work as law enforcement. If that's what you're asking, then the answer is this is
going to allow cross-deputization so that if we've gone through the process,
then they're going to have that ability. Is it asking them to be security guards? That's certainly not my intent. Does that mean that a Fort Smith police officer might not sign up to do that? I don't know,
but you would have to go through the cross-deputization in order to do that. I don't intend
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:23:40
to be at a casino, much less commit a crime at 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 three more than anything else.
Speaker 174
1:23:56
Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions from members? All right, seeing none, currently we have anybody sign up to speak on this bill. All right, don't have anybody sign up
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:24:07
to speak for or against this. Senator Boyd, you're recognized to close. Thank you, committee, for giving me the opportunity to hear this bill. I appreciate the ability to try to answer your questions, and I'd appreciate someone giving me a due pass and a second and a good vote. Due
pass. All right, got a motion due passed by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Payton. any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations,
Senator Boyd. Thank you guys. Quickest bill we've heard all morning. All right.
Speaker 227
1:24:31
Who else got any Senate bills? All right. Senator Clark. SB 471. All right, members, SB 471.
Senator, introduce yourself, then you're recognized to proceed with SB
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:25:02
471. Alan Clark, State Senate District 7. SB 471 is extremely simple. I have seen several bills since I've been in the legislature, moving the both taking away the ability to run with judge 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 judge by your name if you were a judge? I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, members, any questions for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:25:48
Senator Clark? Senator Tucker? This may not be right on point, but take my neighbor right here. He was out of the Senate for four years, and 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 compares to other offices, if you know.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:05
You could ask Senator King. I believe he could, but... When you ran for election in 22, you'd been out
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:11
of office for four years. - That's correct. - Could you put Senator Brian King on the ballot or were you not allowed to because you-- - I don't think I was allowed to, I didn't even try to. - Okay, anyway, I'm fine with you. I'm just curious how it applies to other offices too, thank you. - Thanks,
Speaker 174
1:26:28
Senator. All right, any other questions for the committee? All right,
seeing none, Carly, we got anybody sign up to speak on this bill? Don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this.
Senator, you're recognized close for your bill. -
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:40
I have heard of no opposition to this bill. I would appreciate a good vote. I make a motion, do pass. All right,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:26:47
got a motion, do pass by Senator Clark. See you seconds to Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.
Opposed? Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Senator
King. Senator King, what bill are you running?
Senate Bill 410? Okay. All right, Senator, introduce yourself, and you'd be recognized to proceed with Senate
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:27:20
Bill 410. Senator King, District 28. Okay, members, this is, I won't go through, I think everybody was here for the last discussion on this post-reporting bill, and I 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 rename theirself into consultant, account manager, whatever they want to name it, 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 could come buy a cow off me for $50,000. There's a lot of things that can happen. Nefariously, we know we have a horrible history of members doing illegal things
and been convicted of bribery. I'm just saying for transparency, when you leave office, I did make the three changes that the committee recommended. It said full-time or part-time, which would include us. 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 four years, it goes away, and if the legislature at that time wants to repass it, they can. And believe me, if you've known me, I like sunsets on bills because once you get it in
there, four people on a committee can hang a horrible something later. So this sunsets the bills, just 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
1:28:55
bill. Any questions from the committee? All right, Senator Dotson, we're going to ask for a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:08
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just trying to think back through this bill as I'm going back through it.
You didn't make any changes if I'm seeing it 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, 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 four years,
and currently they're not in any position where they're filing a SFI right now as a, I hate to say low-level
employee, but a regular entry-level employee might be. I think that thing of a social worker
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:30:06
somehow deciding $50 million contracts, hundreds of millions, I mean, and they go to work for an entity, say a nursing home, that is, 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 was receiving zero dollars. 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 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 these situations where somebody, we have a two-year ban on lobbying, correct? So if they go to work for a lobbying firm and they call theirself 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.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:31:36
any other questions for the committee senator hammer on page and i'm i'm wondering is what is concerning senator dodson addressed on
page two line three through six 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 a state agency.
What's your idea behind that phrase? Is that a net that catches everybody, or is it a narrow net that just catches the few you're trying to catch?
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:32:10
A state employee retires, and they go into retirement as we would think so with not any connections to an entity that was receiving a lot of state dollars. as I've mentioned before about Deloitte, McKinsey, Medicaid contracts, a whole laundry list of other things, then they don't have to do anything. When I went out my four years, I went back to farming.
I did not go to work for anything. I mean, if we decide this prison deal, maybe Veneer could conceivably hire me or anybody else or any other state 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 they're account managers and they're working for a lobbying firm. That is mainly what it's directed for. You could have a Medicaid entity that could be in the mechanism of policy contracts approving millions or hundreds of millions. I mentioned with Deloitte or McKinsey or anything, and they go to work for them. Yeah, I think there should be some type of reporting. Okay, and I'm just trying
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:33:34
to think in the mindset of where's the loophole.
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 two years, two 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
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:16
become a... They can't register as 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's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:34:31
what this is supposed to catch. Yeah, you're trying to catch what happens or could happen outside of registering as a lobbyist. This catches everybody else.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:39
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 could be an errand boy or whatever.
Speaker 120
1:35:03
All right. Senator Dodson and Senator Clark or Senator Tucker,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:35:07
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
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:35:16
effect for the next four 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 four 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 four could stop something
here so it just resets everything. Would this I don't
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:35:52
know if this is retroactive or not but if this goes into effect there's no emergency clause on to it, so 90 days after Sine died later this summer, would it go back for four years prior? So if somebody was employed two and a half, three 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 people
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:36:16
that this is supposed to be designed to, as I've mentioned
before, would voluntarily admit how much they are receiving. I mean, we have to receive this
on our financial disclosure forms. So, yeah, I would hope so. So your intent is for
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:36:33
them to have to file. If it's, like I said, somebody may not know that they're requiring. I think the law is, and
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:36:41
maybe Senator Tucker here, our committee attorney,
might, can 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,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:36:57
but maybe that's a question. Well, I'm not necessarily 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 their current status, I guess, if it's been a couple of years or whatever. What I'm concerned about is regular employees because this covers everybody.
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 not actually, they
didn't ever report anything and they weren't required to, but this law catches everyone. Those examples are so out
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:37:40
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 okay for them to call their self an account manager, go to work for a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:00
lobbying firm? So you think that's okay? I'm not 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's the intent.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:16
Or agency people or the people in the mechanism to decide in this. Yes, that's exactly what it is.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:23
But 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 target. Yes, but I
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:42
mean, once you go to do it, but I guess you're okay with somebody going to work and just ignoring the current lobbying thing 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 four Medicaid disclosures and all the ones of our former colleagues that were convicted and even agency 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 time. So I'm just back again. Any other questions
Chair
Unverified
1:39:24
for the committee? Senator, okay, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're not actually banning, we talked
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:39:29
about you can't, you have a prohibition on lobbying for two years have to leave the legislature, right? But you're not actually prohibiting anything with this bill.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:38
You're just asking for disclosure. No, and it
just gets around this thing of not these way out extreme examples. 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
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:40:31
on that. All right. Senator Clark, you have a question? Yeah, just brief answer, Senator King. If this will catch somebody who
worked for vendor procurement and goes to work for a company that they continually gave no bid contracts to. Yes. Thank you. All right.
Any other questions for the committee? All right. Seeing none. Motion do pass. All right. Don't have anybody speak for against this. We got a motion to do passed from Senator King, second by Senator Clark. Any discussion on the motion, say none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Congratulations Senator, your bill passes.
senate bill any senate bills to
Speaker 200
1:41:35
be run any at all senator bryant you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:41:51
run Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Senate Bill 493.
Due to the limited time, I would like to 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 Senate Bill 493, we'd like to visit with the lead Senate sponsor. He'd be happy to visit with you all right outside the chamber here. Representative Richmond, did you have a bill?
Man, you have the patience of Job if you're sitting here. That's one word to use for it. All right. Any other Senate bills? All
Speaker 7
1:42:44
right. Senator Hammer? no no senator you'll
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:43:01
senator what you're running now uh we're on
1714 can i get we got a handout yeah i do please okay and can i get jerry cox come to the table If you would
introduce yourself for the record, you'll be recognized.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:43:36
Kim Hammer, State Senator, District 16. Jerry Cox, Director of Family Council. Okay, and
you're recognized to present House Bill 1714. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:43:47
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 is a paid canvasser. Paid canvassers are subject to certain laws that do not apply to volunteer canvassers.
This bill further clarifies that receiving anything of value includes receiving payment for items like food, lodging, travel, bonuses, fees, gift cards, and any other payments associated with attaining signatures on the petition. It gives some points to clarify. The members have a handout, unless you want me to read it for you, I'll dispel with that. There are some questions and answers that are also listed there, things that have been heard. I think there are appropriate responses to each one of those.
And, Mr. Chairman, the bill is pretty clean and cut forward or straightforward in that it identifies items that would be considered as receiving payment and clarifies what previously 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 Hamer. Thank
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:45:05
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 when we were in the House Committee, 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 six or eight 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, 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 closing a few loopholes that they might use to get around it. Very well said, Mr. Chair. Very well said. Are there any questions from the committee? Senator Tucker? Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:52
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. Correct. 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 B3-1 where you're correct
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:47:24
correct and and we did discuss that in 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 1-3 there in exchange for soliciting or obtaining a signature on a petition, then everything else flows out of that is the way 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, okay, that would mean a gift card. That would mean a stipend. 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 helps them understand where their lines are. And no matter what kind of signatures you're gathering or for what it is, it treats everybody
exactly the same. So, again, it's just to clarify. Okay. Thank you for that.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:35
Thank you for the question. Thorough response, yeah. Thank you. So I see on your sheet here. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a 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
1:48:57
exchange for. That's correct. And that, believe it or not, I believe the House may have spent I don't know how many minutes talking about that. And I think it was thoroughly vetted over there.
but I will tell you 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. That's not trading for signatures. But if you say, we're all going to get together and we're going to give you a t-shirt and some pizza and a gift card, now go get signatures. Then you're stepping over the line. And I think 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. But let me submit that situation already exists even right now under the current law. And I think at a minimum, them, we've made it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:04
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 attaining a signature, but just because that
volunteer told a joke that the ballot measure sponsor really brought a lot of
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:50:24
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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:37
less debate with 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
1:50:49
Well, the clipboard would be a tool of the trade. You don't, listen, I've done, I've probably done five 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 clipboard. So if they failed to do that, it wouldn't be something in exchange for it. It would be just they failed to give back the clipboard. Well, you gave it to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:18
them for the purpose of soliciting or obtaining signatures.
So I don't think there's any way around the fact that you gave
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:51:27
them an item of value in exchange for soliciting or obtaining a signature. I would respectfully disagree. I would respectfully
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:33
disagree with that interpretation. The requirements under the law for paid signature gap, for paid canvassers, are a lot more extensive than they are for
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:51:41
volunteers, correct? Correct. Very 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 something of value for their labor or for their accomplishments, that's totally different
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:52:07
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. There's an exchange going
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:52:23
on there. Senator Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've read your Q&A here and I continue to go back and see where it says,
especially on like on page one, 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 obtaining of signatures on a petition. And so according to this definition, every volunteer will be a paid canvasser.
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. But in my judgment, the way I read it, this eliminates volunteer canvassers in their entirety.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:53:49
Senator Johnson, if I may,
let me call your attention to what the current law says. And I would submit that if this eliminates volunteer canvassers, then the current law does. Because what the current law says is that if you look on line 25, it says, in exchange, it talks about anything.
See, if you read on 23, it says, is paid with whom there is an agreement or with whom there is 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 one could make that point about a clipboard under this law,
I really believe it would apply under the current law.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:55:01
Well, that would probably be on a case-by-case basis. And as you said, attorneys can differ on their interpretation of what something of value is. We, you know, back and forth, it goes all the time, is a piece of candy in a candy bowl a thing of value, an item of value that, you know, it's something that's in the candy bowl that everybody comes by.
And if it's publicly accessible, but if it's something that 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 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 an item of value for giving them a water bottle on a hot day out in the sun,
But under this law, by defining those things specifically, payment for food, payment or reimbursement for expenses especially, those items would give 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.
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:56:32
And I would respectfully say again, 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 law means.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:57:04
And I appreciate your intent to try to clarify it, and I think it's worthwhile effort. Also, 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 or travel expenses could be reimbursed for volunteer. But those are nuances on what should be included in that list or shouldn't be. And it could be, it could be, Senator Dodson, that you have
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:57:58
a disagreement or an issue with the current law. Because I think most people would say that anything of value that's exchanged could be, for example,
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 three nights, We will buy you a t-shirt, and 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 an exchange for gathering signatures?
How many tanks of gasoline, how many hamburgers,
how many motel lodgings? At some point, that person maybe ceases to be a volunteer, and maybe
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:59:01
they're a paid canvasser. 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 probably not going
Jerry Cox
Unverified
1:59:31
to get to agreement on that. Maybe so. And I really
do 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 a matter of current law,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:59:49
what we're talking about. I think we're maybe reading it a little differently, but as far as
the item of list of things that are payment
or 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 let some money go. And
Speaker 389
2:00:15
I understand, and I appreciate your question. I do appreciate
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:00:27
it. Senator Clark? If I'm a volunteer, which I've just always seen it as strictly going out and volunteering,
but if somebody's paying for my gas, paying for my meals or a meal here and there, and I cross over into the paid camp. Excuse me.
What are the differences? How does
that affect, what rules am I going by now that I wasn't going by before? Senator, you're saying if
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:01:06
a person is a paid canvasser, what rules do they need to follow?
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
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:01:46
but I think that's it. So if someone was, because I think Senator
Dotson's asked some legitimate questions, and so 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
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:02:12
any cost with filing. You could certainly do that, yeah. I mean, and that's certainly everybody's right.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:02:18
Anybody can be a paid canvasser. But this bill would eliminate, then, people who are
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:02:28
being paid with the check. Correct. And it would also help people not to inadvertently break the law. Because just like Senator Dotson 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 in 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 these other things here too. So yes, thank you for your questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question or two. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:25
Maybe not three. Are people inadvertently breaking the law quite a bit now? Is it
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:03:32
a pervasive problem? Not that I know of. And I think I pointed that out in the sheet that probably went around. I don't know of anyone who's currently been, you know, prosecuted or charged or accused 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 assume people 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 running for re-election for the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:08
state senate, someone's coming to knock on doors for me and I give them 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?
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:04:21
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 price caps on different things. And he was a mechanic working at a car dealership. And 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, you know, on per diem 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 an Impala
versus a Cadillac, you know, there's a difference. That's correct. And so anyway, I appreciate your being here.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:02
Senator Clark. Yes, I want to follow up. I think Senator Tucker asked a good question too. If I'm a volunteer and they give me signs to put up buttons, et cetera, that's not covered in this
anywhere. That's part of it because that's no reimbursement
Jerry Cox
Unverified
2:06:26
to me. That's correct. wouldn't be an exchange. There has to be some sort of an exchange. You get signatures. I give you
this for doing that. So to his question
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:36
about 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'm not giving it to them as a reward. I'm giving it to them so that everybody, 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 it says Alan Clark stands in it. They don't know why you're standing on the corner.
Correct. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions? Senator Hammer? Seeing no more questions, would
you like to? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We've got some people signed up to speak for and against. Thank you. I'm sorry I
buried it. Dr. Gail Choate, come on up, you'll be recognized.
You've signed up to speak against the bill? Yes, sir. Okay. Take
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:07:49
a seat, introduce yourself, 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 create the opportunity for everyday people to give voice.
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. 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 Dotson 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 volunteer, 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 a 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 sponsors for attempting to clarify. 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 canvas are significant. The other reason I think it's really important that sometimes we don't overdefine 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 inadvertently confuse things. This bill is also not part of an isolated effort, but rather it is part of an overall approach, which I would argue is stifling everyday 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, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, 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. So thank you.
Thank you Dr. Schott. Are you willing to take a question? Yes sir.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:13:08
Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you. If I understood your testimony just now the current
law has created confusion in the field and I think you were
use 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? Well, perhaps I
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:13:30
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 the signature collection process. And when the rules. And I apologize if my testimony tied it directly to this issue. I apologize for that. I
meant in general when the rules are unclear. I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:13:58
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 were making statements about this bill and the content of this bill that the controversy is out there.
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:14:18
So you were mistaken when you said that then. I wasn't mistaken. I maybe didn't phrase it in 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 try to avoid.
And I would argue that part of what
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:15:05
we're trying to do here is clarify and
bring an understanding to remove the confusion, which a lot of that basis, 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 trained of themselves don't know or they pick and choose to tell. And that's, you know, who really knows unless you're in that situation. And Senator Hammer, I agree with
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:15:32
you on that point. You know, The training, I think, is very critical.
And having uniform policy 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
Speaker 423
2:15:51
more initiative and time on training and education. Okay, well, while y'all are
in agreement, let's let Senator Clark get a question in. Sure. Okay, I think
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:16:02
I have two. 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, et cetera, that have to do with this bill. How were you using the word confrontation? Thank you,
Gail Choate
Unverified
2:16:28
Senator Clark. May I give an example? Sure. Okay, 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 a concern, right, that something wasn't being done correctly, right, or because there had been differences in interpretation, There was differences in the approach. There was differences in the philosophy. 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 an example, food listed specifically in this bill, What I'm worried about is I'm worried about the BQC coming up and saying, or 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's the 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 worried about that. I'm concerned about that. And I'm concerned about how that affects the... It's now 1230. I just need to say, and then
we'll go on to his second question. We're going to have to
limit our responses to something concise.
Yes, sir. We've got three or four more people want to speak on this bill, and we want to get the senator's questions in so just try to keep answers concise move along we're getting down to the last 20-25 minutes
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:18:25
here. When you mentioned direct democracy the direct democracy is for Arkansans not for people outside the state correct? Correct sir. Thank you. Thank you senator Clark any
more questions for Dr. Shope? Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Next on the sheet here
jp tendall tendon i'm not sure i've got this right okay kimberly witherspoon and you're here to speak against the bill come on around take a seat introduce yourself and you'll be recognized please turn your
microphone on scoot it close you can pull it towards you it's not
anchored. The microphone. Pull it right there towards
Chair
Unverified
2:19:35
you. Okay. Is it on? Okay. So my name's Kimberly Witherspoon. 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 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 clarifying 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 an exchange I'm concerned about that if I'm sitting in 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 it's 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 that 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 And so to even suggest that the volunteer gets something out of that beyond just, you
know, with the abortion amount, 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 we did not. And so I would just like to clear that up. And 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 company who hires and, you know, lets their paid canvassers go collect signatures?
Or is that an organization who it's not paid, 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 a 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 104 degrees and I either need a bottle of water or they want to give me a bottle of water, where is it defined between someone who signed? That's their opportunity rather than obtaining the signature. So I'm not being paid to obtain the signature. This sounds like I'm being paid by a company, I should say. This sounds like anyone providing a volunteer with anything
would then switch them to a position where they've gone now from a volunteer to a paid canvasser because someone came up 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 down here adding, you know, reimbursements for expenses, bonuses, but we go down here and it talks about other payments associated with soliciting. Okay, other payments, and payments has kind of been described. So where does that, that does include just about anything.
I don't think it's specific. And I would just 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 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 pre-compensated or reimbursed or paid for that signature because I accepted something of 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 go 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. When you read the statute, my statute, my question. We need to move along or other people are not going to testify. Okay, then I would just like to say I think that some of these terms that are in this statute like in exchange for, in exchange from a paid canvassing company or in exchange from someone who is 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? Does 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 if someone accepts something. And I know it says a value, but I accept a signature. Like I said, this happened to me.
And then I became ill, and 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 just not clear whether it has to be from a company like a paid canvasser or whether it can be the ballot question committee or a co-volunteer. Because it is in exchange for a signature. Okay, Ms. Witherspoon, we need you to wrap this up.
Okay, what I need is clearly a definition. Organization receives an item from who? In exchange, are we talking about transactional, Like, once they've signed, then they can give me a bottle of water because 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, who's paying them or who's responsible or they're a volunteer, then how does that even work out? So I don't see, you know, that there's a loophole from who receives something of value.
This creates more questions, frankly, for me than I do believe. I agree that some of these things are excellent. But when you go from, not directly, but when you talk about there being a paid canvassor and then you go down to 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 sign 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 would 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 it 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 affidavit? Motion,
Mr. Chair. I don't mean to be rude, but you're depriving everybody else of having a chance
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:29:42
to talk. Appreciate it. Motion. Senator Clark, you're recognized for a motion. The test won't be limited to three minutes per person. I'm sorry, this is my first time testifying.
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 a motion on the floor and a second to limit debate to two or three minutes. Two would be fine with me. - Two minutes, and then that way we have time for questions. Senator Hammer? - How many are on the list? - I think there are...
This is non-debatable by answering his question, can I? - Sorry. - Okay, just a couple of three. It's non-debatable. All in favor of the motion say aye.
- Aye. - Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, next presenter is Kwame Abdul
Bay, you'll be recognized as soon as you sit down and introduce yourself. The time will start and you'll have two minutes and then if you're willing, we can have questions
Speaker 446
2:30:53
from committee members. No, when you introduce yourself. - I'm gonna try to be quick. I
Speaker 139
2:31:12
know you guys need to be someplace else. Where did you serve, please? Oh, yes, sorry. Kwame Abdul-Bey with For Our Kids BQC. You're recognized. I'm here to speak against this bill.
This bill muddies the waters as far as actually what a volunteer is and is not. 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 it opens up an opportunity for petition blockers to police petition signature gathers.
And there is no due process within this bill to give people an opportunity to really define what they are doing. Is it a reimbursement for their labor? Because that's what the soliciting and obtaining signatures is. That's their labor. 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 Arkansans. What it does is it creates situations that we don't need to get into. So if you take out those four 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. Two minutes and
six seconds. Senator Hammer, do you have a question?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:33:29
Yes, I do. Thank you. You know, I guess there's a difference in opinion what volunteer is because everything I've ever done in the way I volunteer, and I've done some pretty heavy things in the way I 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%. Just 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 okay up to a hundred dollars could you go with that when you say up to a hundred dollars up to up to a total of a hundred dollars on those items that you said you wanted out of the bill because otherwise people are going to say you know lodging and they might go get somebody a motel for fifteen hundred dollars what if there
Speaker 139
2:34:35
was a dollar okay 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 it's no longer appreciation for them volunteering. I agree with that statement. All right. Thank you. Senator Tucker. I just
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:34:53
want to make sure I understood you. When you said those four items, you're talking about
Speaker 453
2:34:58
A, B, C, and D, food, lodging, travelers. A, B, C, D on the local option, and then when you go down to the statewide option, it's
Lines 24, 25, 26, and 27. And 28. And 28, yes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Abbott. Any other questions?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:35:13
Okay, Senator Clark. Does this, in your opinion, apply to petition blockers also? No,
Speaker 139
2:35:26
it does not. It doesn't mention petition blockers at all because it talks about the signatures, soliciting for signatures. Petition blockers, they do not petition, 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. Try to be fair. I
Speaker 446
2:35:57
appreciate that. I've seen that you've been fair
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:36:00
in a lot of these hearings. I think I would have a problem with B coming out. And again, I can see how B can
Speaker 438
2:36:11
be legitimate. With B coming out? The payment for lodging? Lodging. I can see how it can be
Speaker 139
2:36:16
legitimate, but I can also. I agree with that. We've never done any lodging.
But like if we have someone that if we need help at an event in Fayetteville and we need to send somebody, some volunteers to Fayetteville, you know, we would reimburse them for their gas
Speaker 459
2:36:33
to go to Fayetteville. Well, and that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:36:37
would bring me to see is reimbursement for fuel would be the exception that I would would be in agreement on. - Okay, I agree with that too.
- And the $100 that Senator Hammer hit on was exactly what you thought I had. And I know that you're not necessarily thinking about changing anything, but appreciate the point
you made. - You're welcome. - Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Dotson has a question. Senator Hammer has a question. We are going to consider this by one o'clock, one way or the other. So Senator Dotson, you're recognized
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:37:14
for a question. - Mine's more of a point of clarification. I believe we passed a piece
of legislation couple years ago that put blockers with the same requirements as paid canvassers. So by changing
this definition, it would apply to blockers as well. I believe, could
Speaker 338
2:37:29
be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure. I think you're right, and that would certainly, we would want that to be the case. Okay. Senator Hammer, you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:37:39
have a question? Senator Tucker? If we're talking about, and I agree that lodging can be, you know, it could get excessive. 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 capitol gets for an overnight stay. That way
it'll change over time. It's equal to what legislators get. So that might be a good
Speaker 139
2:38:07
threshold. Yes, and towards your point, I have asked the General Assembly over the last three legislative session to let's move this to the Administrative Procedures Act and let's create administrative rules instead of statutes for all of this stuff. And when you're doing administrative rules, you're able to be flexible like the gentleman before said
Speaker 462
2:38:25
that. Doing these statutes, you do not have that flexibility.
Thank you, Mr. Abdul-Bey. Appreciate your testimony today. Hold it. We have one
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:38:36
more question. Did I understand you correctly that you reimbursed people for
Speaker 138
2:38:41
driving to Fayetteville? No, I said I would. I've never reimbursed anybody. I said I would
if I was sending a volunteer to Fayetteville. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you again. I'm sorry, Ms. Taylor, we don't have enough time to hear you. We're going to need to move for immediate, no, not immediate consideration.
Call the question. So, okay, Senator Hamry, you can close real quick. That's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:39:17
fine. A couple 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 canvasser 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 do pass.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:39:52
I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Senator Dotson first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 1, deleting lines 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 can't support the bill and wanted to let everybody know why.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:40:54
Senator Clark, discussion. I've already heard the couple of things that I would like to see changed. They're much smaller than Senator Dodson's. But I have confirmed that this does apply to both sides equally. So whatever it did, if it hurts one side, it hurts the other.
Speaker 338
2:41:16
Thank you, Senator Tucker. I'll be brief.
I agree with Senator Dodson. Wow. Did y'all get that on tape? Mr. Chairman? Any further
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:41:34
discussion? Yes. Dr. Hammer? I want to pull the bill down because we got room
for some agreement. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. That's fine. Do pass and a second. Okay. Do you want to withdraw your motion, do pass? I'll withdraw my motion,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:41:48
do pass, and as long as I
can come back the Monday after, and I'll work on some, maybe, after we have some further discussions.
Let's do that. I'll withdraw the motion. Thank
Speaker 58
2:42:04
you. This meeting is adjourned. Boy, that was a real banging right there. That's sold.
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
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 3
Speaker 8
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 27
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 36
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 52
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 98
Speaker 136
Speaker 139
Speaker 145
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 161
Speaker 158
Speaker 166
Speaker 170
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 174
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 120
Speaker 186
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 210
Speaker 212
Speaker 222
Speaker 227
Speaker 239
Speaker 240
Speaker 244
Speaker 245
Speaker 248
Speaker 249
Speaker 263
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Speaker 266
Speaker 23
Speaker 84
Speaker 194
Speaker 156
Tian Estelle
Unverified
Speaker 292
Speaker 225
Speaker 150
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 314
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 341
Speaker 95
Speaker 24
Speaker 200
Speaker 168
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 121
Jerry Cox
Unverified
Speaker 389
Speaker 403
Gail Choate
Unverified
Speaker 423
Speaker 446
Speaker 453
Speaker 438
Speaker 459
Speaker 338
Speaker 462
Speaker 138
Speaker 58