State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (69)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HJR1009
· 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…the whole thing. Pardon me. OK, um, I am here to represent House Joint Resolution 1009, the Arkansas Victims Bill of Rights. Uh, why would the vic…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1037 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. HB1041 A. Collins TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES I…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK. HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. Page 4 of 5 HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1187
Act 858
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1187 is now Act 858 |
|
HB1243
Act 994
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTR…”
|
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT … | Underwood | Notification that HB1243 is now Act 994 |
|
HB1281
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1415 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE ST…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1422
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES … | Long | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1470
Act 582
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORM…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1470 is now Act 582 |
|
HB1494
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1549
Act 489
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1549 is now Act 489 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ITE ON ELECTION DAY. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1632
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME…”
|
TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED … | Wardlaw | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR. HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES. HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1707
Act 524
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. HB1707 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; TO AMEND PORTIONS … | Hawk | Notification that HB1707 is now Act 524 |
|
HB1720
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGE…”
|
TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1739
Act 814
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS. HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS AC…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1739 is now Act 814 |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1769
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5. HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1774
Act 562
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1774 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUS…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1774 is now Act 562 |
|
HJR1001
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZEN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1002
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT. HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1003
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. HJ…”
|
THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1004
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTIC…”
|
APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR … | Ladyman | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1005
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…03 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE TH…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1006
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HJR1007
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1010
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS. HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-T…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1011
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING. HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDER…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1012
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1013
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTA…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1015
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1016
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE. HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1017
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION. HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED ST…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. Page 3 of 5 HJR101…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
HJR1019
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…JR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. Page 3 of 5 HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOV…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1020
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICT…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE … | K. Brown | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB227
Act 505
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB227 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 | Notification that SB227 is now Act 505 |
|
SB293
Act 487
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROGRAMS. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB293 is now Act 487 |
|
SB299
Act 403
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB299 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A STAFF MEMBER TO WITNESS AN ADMINISTR…”
|
TO REQUIRE A STAFF MEMBER TO WITNESS AN ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTING A RESIDENT OF A LONG-TERM … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB299 is now Act 403 |
|
SB343
Act 734
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…A LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY WITH ABSENTEE VOTING. SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; … | Irvin | Notification that SB343 is now Act 734 |
|
SB344
Act 444
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IR HOUSING COMMISSION. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB344 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE HEALTHY EMPLOYEE LIFESTYLE PROGRAM FR…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE HEALTHY EMPLOYEE LIFESTYLE PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE DEPARTMENT … | Irvin | Notification that SB344 is now Act 444 |
|
SB351
Act 592
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE PROGRAM. SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB351 is now Act 592 |
|
SB370
Act 462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB370 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT … | Irvin | Notification that SB370 is now Act 462 |
|
HB1740
Act 585
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM TH…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. | K. Moore | Notification that HB1740 is now Act 585 |
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
As we previously announced, we're going to hear constitutional amendments this afternoon. And so we're going to begin with House Joint Resolution 1009, Representative Carolyn Brown. I see Representative Brown is here. Representative Brown, if you'll announce your name, the district you represent, you'll be
recognized to present your resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got an amendment. All right, staff
will pass out that amendment to the committee members.
All right, I believe everyone has a copy of the amendment. Representative Brown,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:27
you're recognized to explain your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Carolyn Brown,
District 67. My amendment is removing Senator Gilmore as the Senate sponsor. Senator Gilmore supports victims' rights but does not believe he is in the best position at this time to run this legislation.
And out of respect for him, I'm asking that we remove his name before we run this constitutional amendment. We will add someone else
when it's on the Senate side. All right. Representative Brown has explained her amendment.
Are there any questions? Seeing none, do I see a motion? Motion Representative Meeks to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. The ayes have it.
The amendment's been adopted. Representative Brown, you're recognized to present your resolution as amended. I thought I just did.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:24
Oh, this, the whole thing. Pardon me. Okay. I am here to represent House Joint Resolution 1009, the Arkansas Victims' Bill of Rights. What would a victim's rights constitutional amendment bring to Arkansas? Arkansas is only one of 14 states in the country without a crime victim's rights amendment in its state constitution. Currently, crime victims' rights are only protected by statute in Arkansas. A constitutional amendment would bring meaningful and enforceable rights for crime victims in
the state. These protections would be guaranteed by the highest law in Arkansas, ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, have participatory rights throughout the criminal and juvenile justice proceedings, and enjoy the legal ability to have enumerated rights enforced. Those, I would like to just read these enforceable rights. Specific enforceable protections would include the rights to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's privacy and dignity and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process.
to be reasonably protected from the defendant and anyone acting on behalf of the defendant, to have the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered as a factor in setting the amount of bail and the conditions of release for the defendant, to refuse an interview, deposition request, or other discovery request, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of an interview, deposition, or other discovery request to which the victim consents.
Upon request to reasonably confer with the prosecuting attorney regarding the case against the defendant, upon request to receive reasonable notice to all public proceeding and delinquency proceedings at which the defendant and the prosecuting attorney are entitled to be present and to be present at all public proceedings and delinquency proceedings, upon request to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding or administrative proceeding
in any court or other venue involving the release, plea, sentencing, or other proceeding which implicates a victim's rights to include delinquency proceedings and post-conviction release proceedings. To the timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the defendant, To provide information to a public officer or employee, conducting a pre-sentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim's family, and to see any sentencing report and recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.
Upon request, to be informed of the conviction, sentence, place, and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or escape by the defendant from custody. To full and timely restitution. To the proper return of legal property when no longer needed as evidence. Upon request to be timely informed of and to be present at all post-conviction release proceedings to provide information to the post-conviction release authority to be considered before the release of the defendant and to be notified of any post-conviction release.
To have the safety of the victim, victim's family, and the public considered before any post-conviction release of the defendant. To have all monetary payments, money, and property collected from any individual who has been ordered to make restitution first be applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim. To be informed of the victim's rights enumerated in this section and have them available to the public.
to have standing to assert the rights enumerated in this section before any court with jurisdiction over the case involving the defendant and have them properly considered. Those are the rights that we have enumerated in this amendment, and I'm available for questions. All right. Representative Brown
has explained her resolution. Are there any questions by the committee?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
6:58
Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Brown, you mentioned that we do have some
victim's rights in statute. Can you explain just how the statutory
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
7:17
rights we have differ from the ones that you're proposing? The statutory rights are limited to violent crimes and sexual crimes, also those including children. They are somewhat discretionary, and because they are in statute, they are not always followed.
If we have these rights, this amendment would give rights to all victims of all crime versus the limitation that we
have currently on the categories of violent crime. and sexual crimes. Representative Collin, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of following off of that question, is there
anything in this proposed constitutional
amendment that we could not do in
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
8:18
statute? What we cannot do without a constitutional amendment is to give victims standing. Standing means that they can enforce their rights. That does not mean that they would interfere with the prosecution. It means that they can have their rights, they can speak up and request their rights, opt in to have their rights, or not.
Depending on the type of victim, you know, whatever the crime was. If it was a violent crime, a sexual crime, or possibly, you know, something where they felt very threatened and felt like they needed to be protected, they would probably opt in to have all of these rights respected. However, every victim deserves to know their rights. And with a constitutional amendment that lends, there's no option.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
9:15
These rights have to be respected. Thank you, you know, and kind of putting aside the merit of giving the victim standing in these situations, what is the, I just don't know, what is the reason that we couldn't give them standing via statute, is that? Statute does
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
9:33
not provide standing, as far as I understand, statute does not provide standing, that's why we need it in the Constitution. You mean
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
9:42
that the Constitution would not permit us to pass a statute that would confer standing on a victim?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
9:48
that's a legal question that i don't know the answer to but i i do have subject matter experts here who could possibly respond to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:01
that okay i mean at some point i would just be curious about that that is just a question i think representative ray mentioned early in the process he would be looking and i think i would agree that constitutional amendments really should be things that we have to accomplish with the constitutional amendment as opposed to could be accomplished through statute and I guess I still am a little unclear about why standing and maybe there's a reason why standing
could not be conferred by a statute. Again, if it's not possible, that's fine. I just don't know why that's not possible.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
10:32
Well, if it's a statute, it can always be changed. If we put it in the Constitution, it's enshrined in the
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
10:38
Constitution, just as defendant's rights are enshrined in the Constitution. It's not arbitrary. I understand. Thank you. Representative
Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
10:51
came in late, so I may have missed this
in your opening remarks. Known opposition to your resolution or your amendment? Is there any known opposition? If so, can you tell us who is opposed? Yes, sir. Representative
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
11:06
Beatty, the prosecuting attorneys are opposed to this amendment. They do not want the victims to have standing, and they do not want it to have application beyond what the current application is. Follow-up? This is for staff. Do we have
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
11:23
someone from prosecuting attorneys that are here to speak for or against the bill?
So, Representative Beatty, I can answer that. We do. We actually have several that have signed up to speak against the bill, so I think we'll hear those arguments soon. Thank you, sir.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
11:46
Thank you, Representative Brown. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, I'm just trying to
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
11:52
understand, by this, does it give the victim sort of the right to an attorney? And if so, if it gives them the right to attorney, who pays for that? Is that something that there would be a fiscal impact with this?
Can you just help me to
understand that a little bit better? Anybody has the right to an attorney. There's no
fiscal impact with this amendment. So the victim, I guess the state would not have to give that victim an attorney to represent their concern. or would
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
12:37
they? I'm just trying to understand.
Well, basically, from what I understand, these rights
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:43
are not rights where you would, you're not going to be interfering in the process of the litigation. You would simply, if you were a victim, you would just
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
12:55
say, you know, judge, I really would like a room or a special place in the courtroom where I don't have to sit by the defendant or the defendant's family. I would like to, before the trial, the victim could confer with the prosecutor and share information.
These are not heavy-handed rights. These are just simply rights to protect the safety and privacy and prevent the victims from being re-victimized by the process. But you're saying that the court would not have to
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
13:34
provide an attorney specifically for that victim? I really don't know. Okay. I
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
13:41
don't know. Maybe somebody else could speak to that later. Okay.
And I was just wondering then, if that is the
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
13:49
case, then, you know, who pays for that? And would there be a fiscal impact on that? Just questions that they could be addressed. Well, I would think that we would want
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
13:58
to protect the victims as much as we want to protect the defendants. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. All
Speaker 71
14:08
right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further
questions by the committee, we do have several individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill.
I'm just starting at the top of the list, and I'm going to go down from there. So signed up to
speak for the bill. We have Laura Abbott. Mr. Chair, should I step aside? You're welcome to stay there. If you'd like to step aside, you can. That's completely up to
Laura Abbott
Unverified
14:47
you. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and the committee.
My name is Laura Abbott. I'm a citizen of the state of Arkansas. You're recognized. For over 10 years, I have worked alongside survivors, men and women, and families who have had to fight not just for justice, but for basic recognition in our legal system. Time and time again, I have seen victims left in the dark.
removed from a courtroom. Their voice is silenced by a process that is too often prioritizes the defendant's rights over those who have suffered the most. This is not just a flaw in the system. It is a fundamental failure of justice. Today we and you the members of this committee have the opportunity to get the voice of the people to see what is best for victims in the state of Arkansas.
Speaker 77
15:54
We have an opportunity to change. This amendment is about restoring balance. It ensures that when a crime is committed, the victim is not forgotten. It guarantees that their rights, their safety, and their voices matter just as much as the rights of the accused. Arkansas has a moral obligation to stand with survivors. To recognize that justice
is not just about punishing criminals, but about honoring and protecting those they have harmed. It is about ensuring that no victim is left to navigate this journey alone. That no survivor is denied the dignity and respect they deserve. This is our chance to make a difference, to stand on the right side of history, and to ensure that Arkansas is a place
where victims are not just heard, but protected, valued, and empowered. Thank you. - All right, thank you, Ms. Abbott. For those
remarks, are there any questions by the
committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, Thank you for being here. Again, thank
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
17:18
you for those remarks. Mr. Chair, I have transmitted a couple of letters to the clerks, and I was just wondering if those letters have been distributed to the committee.
They have not, but we'll do that right now. Thank you. All right.
While staff is passing out the letter, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Daniel Hsu, prosecuting attorney Daniel Hsu.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
18:14
Mr. Hsu. I'm Daniel Hsu. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for the 12th judicial district, Sebastian County. I am the legislative chairman for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. I'm also president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. And for those unfamiliar with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association, there's 28 electives across the state and 28 judicial districts. I believe we have 10 of them here today. And you should also have a letter from our association. has that been passed out that has not been passed out but we're going to do that right now
and um anyway we kind of divided it up between four of us to speak instead of all ten of us because lawyers tend to go on for too long a time sometimes so i'll try and find mine is probably more technical uh actually we plan to go in a different order and of course idiot me i'm the one that signed up first so i'll go first even though it's kind of out of order what we plan to talk about. But anyway, my part in this was to go through the actual legislation just kind of line
by line, but I'm not going to go through every line. First of all, victim is defined as an individual directly and approximately harmed by the commission of an offense. Victim is too broad in this legislation. Approximately harmed is not defined. Any law of this state is not defined. I mean, could you be the victim of a drug case? Could you be the victim of a gambling case? Could you be the victim of a speeding case? What about witnesses who are traumatized after seeing,
let's say, a homicide? Is that person now a victim because they're approximately harmed by the commission
of the offense, Arkansas law passed by this legislature defines victim as in its Arkansas code 54205, any person, partnership, corporation, or governmental entity or agency that suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a result of direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal
episode. I'm reading that to you from Brown v. State, the Supreme Court of Arkansas. So you have the legislature and the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas telling us what a victim is. We don't
need a constitutional amendment redefining what it is. In Section 2A3, it talks about what court do
you have that says that they are acting in the best interest of the victim. If they're not, they can be removed.
So what court will make that determination? Is that determination going to be made in the court that is trying the case? Or is it some other court that maybe is perhaps more familiar with family relationships? It's not
defined. In 2B, it says to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. Again, does this give the victim the right to say, hey, I'm not going to testify? I mean, that's quite common in cases of domestic abuse,
and it's one of those things that all of a sudden they will assert their right in court and will have to have a hearing, and it becomes, in essence, an
adversarial thing. We are prosecutors are pro-victim, and this places us in a position that is just odd and out of place for us to be two of this proposed legislation, Be reasonably protected from the defendant. And any individual acting on behalf of the defendant.
Yes, that should be the case. But what state or local government body is going to be
responsible for providing that protection? Again, there's a right, but there has to be a responsibility to that right. 2B4. Can a target defendant refuse to participate in an investigation on the basis of their being the victim? Oh, I
was victimized. And all of a sudden, you've got an attorney for that defendant,
and then you also have an attorney for
this target defendant, even though perhaps he's not a target. He was just a witness to the event. And can they prevent, there's several statutes passed by this legislature allowing for a deposition. It's child sexual assault cases, cases where witnesses are maybe going out of state or are going to be unavailable. At that point, can the witness say, no, I'm a victim, and you're not going to depose me? I mean,
that would, you know, again, interfere with the administration of justice.
2B6, all those rights of notice. Someone's going to speak to this later about we do that right now. You know, I think the statement was made that we don't follow the statutes. Well, we have to follow the statutes. We can't
pick and choose which statutes we follow. We're, first of all, attorneys, and secondly, we're prosecuting attorneys. And, you know, there's a laundry list in 1621-106 that we must comply with, and we do that every day, and it's for all victims.
2B7, what's the definition of reasonably heard? Again, the right to victim impact statement
is paramount to us. We have to listen to what our victims want. And candidly, I rarely have a
case where a judge doesn't ask me, does the victim approve of this disposition? And you better answer yes, or that case is not going to plead. 2B8, this is already covered in 1621-106.
What is timely disposition of the case? We do that as soon as
a case is pled, if the victim is not present, and of course if the victim's present, they've got an opportunity to say, hey, I don't agree with this disposition, or everything that is current in Arkansas law, this provides nothing new.
2B11, when it talks about
full and timely restitution. We try to get that in every criminal case, but the statute
that you passed is comporting with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. The judge can have a hearing, and the judge determines the amount of restitution, and the judge decides the amount of payments. And there's constitutional cases, Bearden v. Georgia. if the defendant has an inability to pay, you know, whatever judge can do about that is limited.
But full and fair restitution, I love the concept of that. But in the reality, in the nuts
and bolts of the criminal justice system, there's pushes and pulls both ways. 12 deals with the retention of evidence, and it specifically says
that the proper return of legal property when no longer needed is evidence.
I mean, that sounds great. That really does sound great. But you have already passed statutes that in certain cases, that evidence has to be kept. In homicide cases, it has to be kept forever. So how am I going to over, how is this going to comport with statutes that you have already passed? 2B-16, it says be specifically informed of the rights enumerated in this section.
So who does that? Is that when they first become a victim? And is it the duty of law enforcement to advise them of all the rights that are going to be in this constitutional amendment? Is it the prosecuting attorney? Is it the judge? That's not specified. In 2C1, a victim has standing to assert the rights under this section in any court with jurisdiction over the case involving the defendant. So, again, what does that mean?
Under Arkansas law, standing is absolutely defined. And I know there are at least three lawyers on this committee. And I'm reading to you from Farm Bureau Insurance of Arkansas versus Running M. Farms, Inc. We treat the question of standing to sue as a threshold issue. It is fundamental in American jurisprudence that in order to bring a lawsuit against an opposing party, one must have standing to do so.
Without standing, a party is not properly before the court to advance a cause of action. So do we understand what standing is? Standings is the ability to sue, to be a, to ask for recompense, to ask for whatever you're going to ask for. But please understand, under the Arkansas Constitution 5, Section 20, there's sovereign immunity for Arkansas.
It can't be made a party in its courts. By passing this constitutional amendment, you're allowing that. And so it's hypothetically possible that you're in the middle of a trial and the defense attorney asks for a continuance and seems to be a righteous request that he's not ready, he can't be prepared that day. And you say, well, we don't object. Well, the victim says, I do object.
And they get their lawyer in and their lawyer objects. So then you're going to have to have a hearing. And then you're adverse to your victim. I mean, it's just an anathema to me. It's hateful. How can that be? How will that advance justice? It just, it cannot. It cannot. Going forward in 2E, that does not give the status of party, but that contradicts what they just said, that you have standing to assert the rights.
It contradicts itself from C1 to 2E. And then 2g, it seems to authorize an individual may maintain an action, aka lawsuit, to compel a public officer or employee to carry out any duty required by this section. So clearly what this does, it gives them standing to sue people, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers.
Is that really what we want? Is that really what we need? Have we heard anything so far that we go, yes, this is what we need. We need to start doing this. And then lastly, as already kind of observed, what's the physical impact of this? If you have a right to an attorney and you can't afford an attorney, we've already learned that you appoint one for the defendant. I mean, equal rights, you've got to appoint one for the victim. And that to me, again, it just makes it adversarial within the prosecuting attorney's position
as representing the victims. I'll take any questions. All right. Thank you,
Mr. Hsu. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed
up to speak for the bill. Elaine Cole-Clesher, may not have pronounced that correctly, and if not, I apologize. That's fine. Just state your name.
Elaine Cole-Clesher
Unverified
30:33
Just state your name. My name is Elaine Cole-Clesher. You're recognized. My husband, Charles, was murdered in July of 1989, and I've been a victim advocate with parents of murdered children for the last 30 years. And I'm here to speak today on behalf of Mr. Joe Buck, whose son Donovan was murdered. Mr. Buck was going to the prosecutor's office over a period of time requesting information about when the trial would be held or a hearing about the trial.
And this went on until Mr. Buck was barred from the courthouse because he was not getting any answers. And after three years, they had a hearing. The defense attorney asked for all charges to be dropped because of a speedy trial. And the judge did drop all charges against the defendant, and he walked free. Mr. Book took his case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that a victim did not have any rights to a speedy trial.
And that was the end of it. Mr. Buck was a victim when he lost his son, and he was re-victimized by the judicial system. All
right. Thank you, Ms. Kulklesher. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you for sharing your testimony
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
32:07
today. I was just curious, was that the state Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court? State. Which state was that?
Pardon? Was that here in Arkansas? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing your testimony. All right. Seeing no further questions by the committee, thank
Elaine Cole-Clesher
Unverified
32:28
you, Ms. Cole Klesher, for your remarks. I wish we
were as articulate as the lawyers are. You did great. Thank you very much. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Teresa Howell. All right, then
next we have signed up to speak against the bill, Chris Walton.
Chris Walton
Unverified
33:09
My name is Chris Walton, prosecuting attorney, Saline County. You're recognized. Thank you. First, all the prosecutors acknowledge that it is a hard, vicious, tough system. It's so brutal on victims and their family members. But I sincerely believe, as someone that has gone through the system twice,
I had a grandmother murdered, a brother that was kidnapped by gunpoint, that what this law does is it offers promises that can't be delivered. When I look at the timely disposition of a case following the arrest of the defendant, If I read that as a victim, there is no way that I would think a case could take three years.
But depending on the complexity of the case, even with best intentions, even with resources better than we have now, that would not change. When I think of full and timely restitution and we have sent the defendant to the penitentiary for life for 20 years, is there a way to get full and timely restitution from the victim's perspective?
Not always. When you look at reasonably protected from the defendant and an individual acting on the behalf of the defendant, when two guys kidnapped my brother and took him at gunpoint and had our car, what would have been reasonable for me is the state of Arkansas or the city that we lived in, Little Rock, to have an armed officer at my house.
That would have been reasonable to me. That's what I feel like this calls for. And you are not going to do that. You are not. And then when I look at an individual appointed by a court to act on a victim's behalf, in my family, we were split. We had my father, who lost his mother, felt one way about the case,
And his great uncle, who cared for her so much, felt completely differently about the case. Putting one person in charge of the case for the family, while it seems ideal, families don't always disagree. You cannot promise these things through an amendment if you cannot deliver, or you should not.
I have seen nothing in the system that makes me think that these things can be delivered upon. Now we have statutes, we work to deliver on those. But this amendment promises additional things that I think are impossible from a victim's perspective to enforce. I will conclude with the bond that my family formed with a deputy prosecutor in the case, in one of the cases, which was Melody Piazza, she wasn't Melody Piazza back then, was absolutely critical for our family.
Her representation in court made me want to be a deputy prosecutor. If she was stuck explaining why she couldn't deliver on these, this would have hurt that relationship. I think this would be a mistake for those reasons and the reasons that were stated in the letter and by Mr. Hsu. Thank you. All right. Thank you,
Mr. Walton. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for those remarks.
we have signed up to speak
Speaker 105
37:46
for the bill. Julie Eckert. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Eckert. I'm a retired sex crimes detective from, I started out at Little Rock and later went over to North Little Rock. And when I first started was in 1994. And when I first became a detective, that was in 1996. In 1996, we rarely saw cases go beyond a year for everything to be processed
and the court process to occur. I retired from the North Little Rock Police Department and I still have outstanding court cases that I'm attending in 2025 from 2018. these victims do not have a right to a speedy trial. The excuses that I've said in the courtroom and heard from the public defenders, mostly,
or the defense attorneys, range from I have a medical appointment at some time that week. My daughter's getting married, Your Honor. I'm going to be really busy trying to pick her out a dress. I haven't read the case file yet. All of those excuses were an excuse for the judge to give a continuance. And one of the cases involved a serial rapist in North Little Rock. We had several adult victims waiting to testify.
They kept giving court date after court date. They would change all of their schedules. They would be prepared to see their attacker who was a stranger. They didn't know this individual just to show up and the case be continued again and again and again. That individual was arrested in 2017. That case was not resolved until 2022. And you have a numerous amount of women
looking over their shoulder, wondering when this is going to be resolved. And that's just one of the examples. A couple of months ago, I went to a case on a trafficking case from 2018. The victim disclosed when she was 14 years old. She was in state custody this whole time. When she turned 18, she got sent back to the family that had started trafficking her when she was 10 years old.
So you can just imagine how court went when her aunt, who was the defendant, brought her to court. The other thing that I've seen with going to court, I stay, some detectives don't do that, but I stay with the victims and the victims' families because I know how that victim is going to be treated on the stand, and I want to be there for that rape victim when the defense attorney gets through questioning them. I can't be in there
with them and I've seen so many times even though what's in the statute now that says that the victim can have a parent or guardian in the courthouse that's not allowed the mother and I are in the witness room together the moms are not allowed in the courtroom when their daughters have to testify and we can't talk about the case because we're under the rule but when they come out. They know that I'm there and I'm an emotional support person and their case detective. And I'm
going to stay the whole time to support them because I know what's about to happen. And I can't believe that in 2025, we have to have a constitutional amendment to tell people to treat victims with dignity and respect, but we do. And that's from my experience over the past 25 years. We need this constitutional amendment.
And it's not right that defendants have more rights than victims. The defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but victims don't have a right to a speedy trial. That just doesn't make any sense to me to be five or six years out for these these victims. And I understand COVID did happen in 2020. These cases are from 2018. They should have been resolved before that. So this has been implemented in all but 12 states.
Those prosecuting attorneys, I don't know where they stood in the state, but this was able to pass as a constitutional amendment in other states. Thank you. And I'm also open for questions if anyone has any. All right. Ms. Eckert
has spoken for the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
42:51
Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. My
question, so you just said that everybody but 12 states. Is it the same exact language that is passed in every state, or do you know? I do
Speaker 105
43:01
not have that, but I believe there is someone here from Marcy's Law that can speak to that.
Speaker 116
43:06
Okay, maybe we'll testify here in a minute. I just want to make sure that if it's the same going across. Understood. Thank you, ma'am.
Yes. All right, next we have signed up to speak against the bill, Will Jones.
Speaker 121
43:36
okay there you go thank you mr chair and members of the committee um will jones the elected prosecutor for the sixth judicial district which is pulaski and parry county um many of the people sitting behind me have been long dear friends that have worked i've worked with in the system miss eckert has testified i don't know how many times she's testified in trials that i've had and most of her work i think all of her work in law enforcement has been right here in pulaski county in our jurisdiction we have over 10 500 cases currently we have over 250 homicides pending in
our office we know that the speedy trial rights of the defendant and we try to we don't have exact rights for for the victims to get speedy trial but we are working every day to try to get those cases resolved back when i was a line prosecutor i would talk to families and victims and i'd say hey we've got a year to bring this to trial and i wanted you to prepare yourself that it's probably going to take about a year for this to work its way through the system. Now I tell them, based on the backlog that we still have from COVID, it's going to be about a two-year process. So that means that our relationship as an office, as prosecutors with those victims,
it's paramount. It means everything. Because the roller coaster of going through the criminal justice system, it's very traumatic and it's hard. And they have to be able to trust us and put their faith in us, that we're going to fight for them as hard as we can for as long as it takes to get them justice, because with 10,500 cases, and we just had a new court open up in Pulaski County, so we have five circuit courts that are navigating through those cases, so they
do not move quickly. We had over 300 jury trials set in the first two months of January, 300 jury trials in two months, and we have 47 deputy prosecutors right now, and so it is almost impossible for our deputy prosecutors to get prepared for those cases, but they are working very hard. I was in a jury trial meeting the other day, and one of the deputy prosecutors had 10 cases in the next two weeks. That deputy prosecutor had 52 witnesses that she had to get prepared for those cases. Now, they didn't all go to trial, obviously, but a case doesn't plead out if you're not ready
for trial, right? What's the defense attorney going to do? If they know you're not ready, they're not going to take a plea, and they're going to force you to get to trial. How do you get ready for 10 jury trials. One attorney assigned to 10 jury trials that has to get 52 witnesses prepared to testify in court. That's the reality of what we're dealing with. So my sympathies are certainly with the victims in the cases. And those folks behind me know that I've absolutely dedicated my career to doing everything I can to get justice for victims. And sometimes that takes a little while. So when we talk about standing and enforceable rights, the big issue
that i'm concerned with is how do we how does that happen without there being an adversarial process i'm not i'm not standing here before you saying i'm worried about getting sued by a victim who didn't like the job i'm doing i'm worried about ruining that relationship that i have to have with the victim to get them through the system and the process that can take years so what happens if a victim says that she does he or she does not like what we're doing or wants to enforce their rights. That has to happen in some sort of hearing. So in Pulaski County, I envisioned that
that hearing would take place where a judge would say, okay, we're going to set it for a hearing next week, and you have your attorney here, and you prepare your evidence to say, put on the record how this prosecutor violated your rights. And then I would, assuming, presumably have the right to put on evidence of how me or a deputy prosecutor in my office did not violate those rights. So that right there is a delay. I mean, think about in a jurisdiction where we have 10,500 cases, with most of those involving victims, what if you end up with hearings like that all the time? I just don't want to be in an adversarial setting.
There are times when victims disagree with how our cases are handled. Sometimes those are misunderstandings. Sometimes it's not understanding the law. There are various things. How do we deal with that now? We go in a room together, and we sit down, and we talk about it. I try as best I can for every first-time meeting that we have with a homicide victim's family. I'm in that meeting. Not because I'm more important than our deputy prosecutors. I want the families to know that our support for them as an office goes all the way to the top and that we are a team and that though it's a deputy prosecutor that may not have
nearly the experience of me handling that case, I am with them and our entire office is with them. That's how important I think this relationship is. And if that plays out in a courtroom in a public setting where someone is accusing us on the record in public of not doing our job, then I think that causes a problem. And then think about this, what if that setting happens and the judge finds that our office did anything wrong? So what happens with my ability to prosecute that case? That victim has lost, they've lost faith in me, they've lost faith in our office.
So do I have to get another conflict attorney prosecutor from another jurisdiction to come and handle that case? Because now there's a distrust because we've had an adversarial hearing play out in court. I have talked with so many of the people behind us, asked them how you could do this and have the standing and enforce these rights without creating that adversarial relationship that would drive a wedge into our relationship. I've yet to get an answer, and nobody's been able to tell me how that would play out without
creating that situation. So that's the reason that I'm sitting here before you today, a staunch advocate for well over 20 years for victims, and I don't believe this particular amendment, the way it's worked, And for all the reasons that Mr. Shue put forward and Mr. Walton, I don't believe this is the best for victims. Thank you, and I'll certainly take any questions. All right, thank you, Mr. Jones. Are there any
questions by the committee? Before you leave, I do have a couple of questions for you.
As a former deputy prosecutor, I've lived that life and had all of those cases and had to get them ready for trial and had victims who weren't always happy when at the last minute for reasons out of my control a case didn't go to trial you have examples you know for instance defendant moves for a mental evaluation at the last minute and judges almost routinely grant those and trying to explain to the victim that if they ask for for a mental evaluation there's really not
anything i can do about that but they were extremely upset and for
circumstances that were out of my control so i guess my first question to you is
Speaker 121
50:09
has that also been your experience Yeah, absolutely. Yes, sir. There are a lot of ways that cases can be delayed. And it's not all just for the purposes of delay. I mean, obviously we want to ensure that a case is handled properly and justice is handed out fairly and justly. And we don't want to create a situation where we're creating an appealable issue, an issue that can go down
road because we want to make sure that our that our cases are clean and that we've done every opportunity every right that has been it can be afforded to the victim we want to do that i want every defendant that comes before our office or has any dealings with our office to know that you know we we were we were firm but we were fair all the way along and i want i want them to know that so um you're absolutely right that's something that we want to make sure that we get all of that cleaned up on the front end so we don't have an appealable issue down the road because there's really I wouldn't say nothing worse but it's hard to think of something worse
than a case getting overturned on appeal and
Speaker 126
51:08
now we have to go back and put that family through a jury trial again and that's a that's a
situation we always want to avoid. Thank you for that I have another question so would you explain the fact that prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and kind of why that's important how that fits into this dynamic well
Speaker 125
51:32
the reality is the Constitution and the voters confer on us the ability to bring those charges I
Speaker 121
51:38
mean they're brought under my name but obviously I have so many good people that work for us that it's the state of Arkansas and so often you hear certainly in movies and all that well so-and-so is not pressing charges well that's that's not how it works you can imagine in a domestic battery situation where there's pressure put on somebody a pressure put on victims or we have a of violent crime here in Pulaski County and a lot of times we have victims that are scared to come forward because of retaliation. It is a real thing that happens and might very well have happened on the streets of Little Rock today in a brawl that happened outside of our office. So I can't go into
that but we believe that's exactly what happened today. So it is the state of Arkansas that brings those and that way it's not up to that victim. It's not up to them to bring it. It's us and what we always tell families and victims is that we want this to be a process we do together the state and the Constitution gives us the right and the responsibility to bring those forward and to make these decisions however we want to do it together we want to have everybody at the table and I believe strongly in that there's just very few times that I have to make a decision
that the victims ultimately do not agree with and and that's that's something that I believe strongly that we want to do that that process together and And sometimes those decisions are bringing a case when
the victim may not even be cooperative because you're the state. Take a domestic battery case, for instance. I'm sure you've seen this many times. You have victims who are not really cooperative. And if it were up to them, the person who battered them, who stabbed them, who did something horrific to them, if it were up to them, the case would never be brought.
But we say that the case is not up to them. up to the state of arkansas and those who we've charged with that responsibility of
making those decisions whether or not to bring that case so that justice can be done is that fair that's
Speaker 121
53:25
fair and i have an extreme example that i can give members this committee and those in the room we had a case in pulaski county with a victim who had been been raped by her stepfather repeatedly for many years to the point that she set up a camera to videotape it so her mom would believe her when this happened well it took a couple years for that two three years i think for that to go
go to trial. Well, he put pressure on her, her mom put pressure on her, and she didn't want to go forward. And she actually came to court, testified for the defendant. Think about that. Our deputy prosecutor had to cross-examine the actual victim in the case, who's now an adult, had to cross-examine her, and she said, well, what you see on this video is not really what it's purported to be. She argued against her own video that she used to capture her stepfather raping her. So that's an extreme example, but it happens, and I'm sure all the prosecutors here could have examples
similar to that. Sometimes we have to go forward for the best interest of the public and the victim themselves, even when they
don't want to. Yeah, very good. Last question. One of the
things that we keep hearing is that the defendant has rights, but the victim doesn't have rights. There is, of course, historical reasons why defendants, if you will, have rights that are written into the Bill of Rights because of abuses that happened in England. It goes all the way back to the way defendants were not given a speedy trial, administered cruel and unusual punishment.
There's a number of things, and many of that comes from historical matters that go all the way back to Europe. Can you explain, you know, when we hear this argument that defendants have rights. Well, there's historical reasons for that. Could you maybe elaborate on that a little bit? Well, I think you did a
Speaker 121
55:13
good job talking about that. We've got to think about the reasons for why the Constitution was passed. You know, the founders had so much foresight all those years ago to put those laws into place. But, you know, like Mr. Hsu stated, we have rights for victims
that are statutory rights, and the prosecutors are the ones making sure that we defend those rights every day. In fact, this is the way I'll just give you a little insight into how I finish up jury selection. Usually the last question that I ask is that I go through and I talk about all the very important constitutional rights that a defendant has, right? And if any of us were there in that chair accused of the crime, we would have all those very important protections. And then I ask them, can you promise me that when you're thinking about all the very important rights of the defendant, you'll also think of the rights of the victim and our community in getting justice
and make sure that we hold those on equal footing so that we're all starting on the same page and that we're going to protect everybody's rights all throughout this hearing, this proceeding. And unanimously, all jurors agree with that and they understand that's a basic concept that plays out in courtrooms every time we try a case. All
right, thank you very much, Mr. Jones. Are there any further questions
May I ask one? You're not on the committee. It's not appropriate this time. I'm not trying to, that's just not how we do things.
But you'll have an opportunity
to clear up any issues in your closing. Thank you, Mr. Jones,
appreciate that. Next, we have signed up to speak for the bill, former First Lady
Susan Hutchinson
Unverified
57:00
Susan Hutchinson. Good afternoon. My name is Susan Hutchinson and I think I'm rather well-known for being on the side of victims, especially children, especially those who have been personally and bodily violated in the most hideous of ways.
Point of record, we didn't take children seriously until recently in my lifetime in the 90s when a prosecuting attorney decided that the judiciary system was unjust to the children. They were easily manipulated and not heard because they were almost always telling on a close relative or a well-respected person.
So, Bill, as much as I love you, it chaps my hide that you told us a story where you did not protect the witness, the child, But she was left to be bombarded and manipulated by a mother. Yes, that happens. There are mothers who think they are in competition with their boyfriend for the affection of their own daughter.
I'm appalled that the stepfather accused had access to the victim. To the point that she saw no way out but to go along with the two people who should have been protecting her as a biological mother and as a stepfather. So yes, victims of crime are not being protected by your own testimony and your own purview and your own responsibility and in your own power.
That's why this must be in the Constitution of Arkansas guaranteed that victims' rights will be honored, decided on appeal, however you want to go about it with the court system. We take appeals on constitutional issues to the proper courts. All of that can get figured out. Y'all are smart people.
But our victims must be protected. The system, as you recounted and told us, is not protecting them per day under the laws that we already have. So we must get this passed. Because people who hurt people don't stop unless we stop them. try to rehabilitate them before we turn them loose again.
And violators don't stop with just one person. They violate multiple people in concert behind everybody's back. 90% of the time when it comes to minors, teenagers, they know exactly who did it and the rest of us don't want to believe who did it. So we need a constitutional amendment, and the standing is not going to overturn any conviction.
It's just a way for the court to review and not have a spat between two people or your office or your prosecutor or your deputy, but let the judge look over, and it's the judge associated with the case. it's pretty clear we can work it out the this amendment allows legislation to affect how it's interpreted and such it's very manageable in my opinion but getting this going we see that what
we have on the books now is not protecting and there is no recourse for any kind of review by anybody so it is a shouting match or whatever between those who are supposed to be following the law. As far as we the state, who is the state? We the people are the state. We self-rule. The laws are for us and we pass the laws for us to
live peaceably, pursue our livelihoods, pursue our lives, follow our God, do right, be good Samaritan, whatever. We need, yes, prosecutors. We need judges. Yes, we set them up to make these rulings, to follow the law. Yes, to make sure the accused has their rights, but the victims need their rights, wondering when somebody's going to get turned loose or not.
And the way this amendment is written is upon request, upon request, upon request, all these different things to be requested by the victim of those in charge of pursuing the case. And I'm appalled that we're in the bottom 12, 14 of our fellow states and we don't have victims' rights in our Constitution.
We've been working on this for a long time, I'm told. And with all these statues in the past from the 90s on to present, and we're still having victims victimized either by the system or failure to protect the victims. As in the case you cited, Will. People matter.
If the government's not out there to protect us and ensure our rights, why do we have a system? Why do we have a structure? Or it'll just be the law of the jungle. And we don't want that. We want law and order. All people matter. Victims, too. Just as much as the accused. Thank you. Thank you,
Mrs. Hutchinson. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, thank you so much for being here and thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against
Speaker 139
1:04:34
the bill, Greg Parish. Greg Parish: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, Greg
Speaker 140
1:04:37
Parish, the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. I just want to point out some things for everyone to think about and with my colleagues, the
former the prosecutors as a former deputy prosecutor I understand what the people the victims incur and we sympathize with that as defense attorneys I had the pleasure of meeting with a victim's mother whose daughter was the victim of a homicide and to her graciousness she agreed to meet with me about 18 months ago and so I sat there and saw the tears and I understand the hurt and so as a result of that we as defense attorneys are often treated much
like the defendant but we have a job to do and we know how to do it and we have to do it and the Constitution guarantees one a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and we often think about that in a criminal proceeding and that is this that's the case coincidentally the case that gave us that right Gideon v. rain right turns 62 years old tomorrow but some of the things that i want to point out for everyone
to consider is this would apply to a great number of courts this would apply to district courts city and county divisions this would apply to juvenile courts this would apply to circuit court adult felonies this would likewise apply in civil cases in the event there's a habeas petition because habeas petitions are not brought in the criminal case, but they are brought by the defendant. So it has a CV number. And I would submit it could probably apply in federal court,
even though they have federal jurisdiction. When a defendant brings something in federal court, typically the representative of the state is the attorney general, the state agency. So it could likewise have impact there. My big concern is the issue with standing and being a party because if they have standing and if they're a party, and what I refer to as I direct your attention to page three,
line 35, a victim has standing to assert the rights under this section in any court with jurisdiction over the case involving the defendant in page 4 line 7 says a victim does not have the status of a party in a criminal proceeding I recognize that's what it says but I disagree with that because the language throughout this bill and specifically page 4 line 19 an individual may maintain an action to
compel a public officer or employee to court carry out any duty required by this section you maintain an action you're a party you are a named party in the lawsuit and so every law every attorney in that lawsuit must recognize you if if we are going to provide access to counsel that's for this committee to decide then i would submit that someone ought to be giving some thought to the cost
because while a good majority of us in this room may have the funds to hire counsel there's a lot of people out there that do not and if it's a constitutional right to counsel it's constitutional will the state then be appointing attorneys and if so i don't know where they're going to come from because i know from my perspective and i have many professional friends to my right i know the difficulties we have
finding attorneys to serve as deputy prosecutors and public defenders and i'll be glad to take any questions all right thank you mr
paris are there any questions by the committee Seeing no questions by the
committee, thank you, Mr. Parrish, for those remarks. Thank you. Next, we have signed up to speak for the bill, Sheila Duvall.
Sheila Duvall. If you would, yeah, just state your name for the record, any organization you're here representing, and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:09:23
you're recognized to present your remarks. I'm Sheila Duvall. I support the J-H-R-10-9. All
right. Do you have any additional remarks you'd like to make in that regard?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:09:46
My name is Sheila Duvall. I would like to thank Mr. Chairman and the committee for listening to my remark. My son was murdered August 7, 2017. I was never informed of my victim rights. I wasn't treated with dignity and respect. I wasn't never given the opportunity to implement my rights to be heard by reading victim impact statement. And most important, my rights to be present was denied due to me asking questions.
I won't go into details in front of this committee. My purpose here today is to make things better in the future for the victims in Arkansas. How can our state move forward to provide victims constitutional rights and assert and enforce victim rights? I am asking this committee and the Arkansas legislature to vote yes.
All right, thank you, Ms. Duvall. Does that conclude your remarks? Yes. Are there any questions
by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being
here. Thank you for those remarks. You're welcome. Thank you. I believe that we have reached the end of all
those who have signed up to speak against the bill, so the remainder of the witnesses will be
Daphne Boyd
Unverified
1:11:29
for the bill. Next we have Daphne Boyd. Good evening, my name is Daphne Boyd, I'm here.
My son, Xavier Woods, he was 20 years old, and on April the 1st, 2013, my son was murdered by an 18-year-old who had recently been charged for a gun violence and he was let out until his court appearance. When we went to trial, I had to sit with the defendant and his family, the defendant staring
at me and his family beside me, making mockery remarks. Me and my family, we were threatened, me working as a nurse, I was threatened on my job. My children had two children that was in college. They moved away for safety. My son's father, he grieved so badly to where he ended up passing due to grief. Not only did we bury him, but we ended up burying his father due to grief.
And it has caused a great impact on our family. And I'm asking that the committee and the legislation please vote yes for H.J.R. 1009. All right. Thank you, Ms. Boyd. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, thank you for being here and thank you for
those remarks. Next, we have to speak for the bill, Charlotte Mead Leader.
Charlotte Meadlear
Unverified
1:13:10
hope i said that correctly my name is
Charlotte Mead
Unverified
1:13:20
charlotte mead lear um i just want to speak for for this bill because i am also a victim and a survivor of an attempted murder and rape but um i just want to say when you're in those situations and you're a victim you have to go to through the process it's hard for everybody But when you don't feel like you have any rights, a lot of times you're treated like you're lying when you tell someone that you've been raped.
My episode, it was an ex-boyfriend that I had broke up with that broke into my home and drug me off, kidnapped me, and I got away. But the point was that through the process of having to go to court and stand beside that person that did that to me, I was mocked and I was made to stand right beside him after all that had happened to me. And it was like I was made to feel like I lied about it, like I made the whole story up
because I didn't have enough evidence. And I just feel like the victims should have more rights of some type to protect them from feeling so violated and so traumatized in those kind of situations and maybe taken a little more seriously. thank you thank you questions all right thank you miss meadlier there any questions
by the committee seeing none thank you for being
here and thank you for your remarks next we have signed up to speak for the bill melinda crowder
Speaker 161
1:14:59
i'm the mother of a victim of homicide
and i have to be her voice because she's no longer here and i will be brief i just feel like this face this person deserved as many rights as the man who killed her and i would like to ask you to please vote for the amendment thank you thank you so much ms crowder appreciate you being
here. Next, we have signed up to speak for the bill, Will Cheatham.
Speaker 163
1:15:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I just have some brief remarks in support. My remarks are simple. A Victims Bill of Rights ensures that the crime victims have specific rights throughout the criminal justice process, including the right to be treated with fairness and respect, to be protected, reasonably protected from the accused, and to receive timely information about these proceedings. You know, Arkansans deserve a criminal justice system that ensures victims are treated with
dignity and respect. At its heart, you know, our government's most important role is to keep our citizens safe. And in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, victims need to be included meaningfully at every stage of the process and empowered. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cheatham. Are there any questions
by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank
you for those remarks. That concludes all of the witnesses we have signed up to
speak for or against the bill.
Representative Brown, you're recognized to close for your—and I keep calling it a bill. Technically, it's a resolution. - You're recognized to close for your resolution as amended. - Well,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:16:56
now that we've heard from all of the attorneys, could I please call up my subject matter expert to help me with this closing?
Is that-- - That's not normally how we do
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:17:11
things, but-- - Well, they've raised a lot of questions and I believe that they've been disingenuous and that the protections are already built in
into the legislation, into the resolution, and I'm not an attorney. - All right, give me
just a second. We got a question. Representative Rose, parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair recognized. Is it
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:17:33
appropriate to ask for a period of Q&A with the bill sponsor, the resolution sponsor, before the closing? - Well, we had
an opportunity to do that, I think. And the committee didn't seem to have many questions.
This, you know, we just have a normal protocol that we follow, but here's, this is the point. We're only going to hear this constitutional amendment likely once, and so I want to make sure that everyone is heard. I want to, if there's someone, Representative Brown, who's here that, your subject matter expert who has not had the opportunity to speak, certainly I'm going to let them
speak. So who is that person first? Then Representative Rose, I'm going to come back to you.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:18:19
I'd like to invite Judge Verdine to come up and speak. She has been a judge for over 20 years in a state that has had a Victims' Bill of Rights,
and she can speak directly to the concerns that were brought up by the prosecuting attorneys and others. And there are pieces in this legislation that I believe respond to some of those questions, and I'd really like to have another attorney speak to them. All right. So before we do that, that is out of order. Is there
any objection by the committee? All right. Seeing no objection should be allowed to come and speak with you. Representative Rose, did you have a concern that we need to address?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:19:00
I was just going to follow up with the same line of thinking of, you know, since we haven't heard a closing and we haven't voted, we won't be voting. I was curious if there'd still
be a moment to ask questions of the bill's possible. So I'll tell you what. But we're going to treat Representative Brown's witness as essentially a witness for questions. And so once she's concluded her presentation, we'll open it up to questions to Representative Brown and her witness. Is that fair? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Ma'am, if you would, state your name and the
Speaker 172
1:19:39
organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Good afternoon. My name is Maria Verdeen. I am a guest in Arkansas. I live in Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, where I served as a judge for over 20 years, and before that, I worked at the Attorney General's office, and before that, I was a Deputy Public Defender. In my own state, we have had victims' rights for over 30 years, and I have been able to see them from the perspective as a defense attorney, as a prosecutor, and as a judge.
And I was honestly surprised that there were as many states as there are that did not have victims' rights in their constitution. So, as a judge, I remember this late in the day, thinking and telling my attorneys that the brain can only endure what the bottom, or absorb what the bottom can take. So, I'll try to be brief. I can answer the questions that were raised. I don't know if you want me to.
So, sir, if you want me to go through all the questions that were raised or wait until the questions are presented, I can explain how those are addressed in other places. I work for Marcy's Law now. I am a senior policy counsel, and so I have an opportunity to travel throughout the country to see how it works in different jurisdictions. Not every state has Marcy's Law. There are 12 states that have Marcy's Law.
The other 24 have independent victims' rights bills in their constitution. Arkansas is one of the few that does not. If we talk about history, as one of the other witnesses testified, you will see that the constitution is a document that allows us to amend it and introduce amendments. Because, as you know, there was a time when many people in this room could not own property or could not have the right to vote, and so when we talk about victims having rights, it is an
evolution. In a sense, it might even be going back to where we came from, because when this country was first started, victims prosecuted their own cases. They were their own voice. They didn't need to rely on the state, and so just a point of clarification. The most important reason why you want to elevate a victim's rights bill or legislation or resolution into your constitution
is that as a community, you value this and want to place it in the highest law of your land, that this is an issue that merits discussion and it merits recognition and it merits being placed in a constitution that cannot be changed or swayed through time, that we honor the rights of victims the same way that we honor the rights of a defendant. When we talk about how there are possibilities that there could be an adverse situation between
a prosecutor and a victim, this is not new. This happens all the time. the state does not represent the victim. The state has a job to do in pursuing a case, and the victim sometimes is in disagreement and should be able to raise their hand and say, Judge, I want you to recognize me. So when we're talking about these rights, they're a moment in time. They're very limited. They're just the ones that are enumerated there,
and they end when that moment has passed. So I have not ever, ever in my career seen a prosecutor and a victim in a hearing where they were confrontational with one another and were concerned about how to prosecute the case going forward. There is in every profession, every profession, a review and a right to question when something may not have been done correctly.
So the biggest reason I give you to consider this is that the people of Arkansas, like the people of the United States, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and to have access to justice the same way as any other citizen has access to justice. When we elevate and enshrine those rights, it means that as a community, we believe that that's where they belonged.
And in the hierarchy of laws, we have our constitution, our statutes, our local laws, our protocols. Where do we put the things that we value the most? We put them in the constitution. If you want me to talk about some of the points that were raised, expanding the definition of victim, Sovereign immunity, appointing a lawyer, timely disposition, full and timely restitution, reasonable protection, victim representative.
Speaker 174
1:25:09
I am prepared to address all of those if you would like me to, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. All right, Ms. Verdeen, I'll let you make the presentation as you wish. I think it probably would be helpful for the committee if you'd like
Speaker 172
1:25:30
to explain those concepts, and then we'll take questions after that. Absolutely. No doubt that this resolution expands the definition of victim. No doubt. And that's what it's intended to do.
Because if you're a victim of one of those crimes that is not enumerated in a statute, you should have the voice in the courtroom as well. You should have the protections that those victims have. And that might be a victim of an arson, an elderly victim who has been swindled out of their life savings, or something as simple as someone who has had the mud that they got at the pound, at the local pound, stolen from their front yard. Those victims probably want to be heard in court. There might be someone who has had a bicycle stolen or a car broken into, or even an assault
that doesn't really want to be heard or want to participate. And this gives autonomy to the victim to let them not be present if they don't want to. It's a situation, as was mentioned earlier, where you have to opt in, but it does expand to all crimes. And when we talk about direct and proximate, this is the definition that's carried in the Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act. It's the definition that we learn of in law school.
It is, but for your action, I would not be hurt. This is a foreseeable consequence of you pulling a gun on me, and now I'm a victim. So that's what that means. And it's the same definition that's used in every 50 states with the Federal Criminal Crime Victims' Rights Act. That is the standard. So it is, in fact, a definition that would expand in Arkansas, who falls into the category
of victim, and it would be protected by the Constitution. And it's very similar to the language in many of the states. However, I will concede that it's not identical in every state. Every state has the opportunity to craft language that is unique to their own people and to their own culture, to their own protocols, and that is what the people of Arkansas decide how they want to proceed. That is the definition of victim. It then goes on, there was some mention
about conflict among families, about who should be the spokesperson for the victim. That's on the judge. The judge controls the courtroom. The judge decides who wants to rep, who will be designated as the representative for the victim. You know what? In many families that are blended families or split families, there might be two voices and they might not be consistent, but they deserve to be listened to. Doesn't mean that one is going to prevail or the other. It just means
that you recognize someone as having a voice and the ability to participate in the government process of prosecution. Sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is not new. Most constitutions have it. It protects government employees when they're working in good faith and doing the things that they have to do. So what is the resolution if you can't sue somebody for money? You don't always sue somebody for money. You see all kinds of cases where people say, I just want a dollar.
I want an apology. I want a recognition that maybe, you know, it was a rough day in the office and maybe you didn't notice me. You thought you did. When I was a judge and I had someone come up to me and say, judge, it was inadvertent. We, you know, we thought the notice went out and for some reason we had the hearing. I since have learned that this happened. The resolution was this. let's do it again. Let's do the hearing and I will hear what the victim has to say. And many times
it was the court who played the difficult role of having to explain to the victim, you know what, this is a plea agreement and I agree with it and I'm listening to what you have to say and I will hear what you have to say at sentencing and I will consider at that time what to do. It holds the system accountable. It allows the judge to look the victim in the face, to afford them the dignity, and explain to them how the system works. It doesn't mean that the victim's going to win.
It doesn't mean that the victim is going to get the outcome that they want. I will tell you, most of the time, victims don't get the outcome that they want. They don't have 24-hour protection in front of their house. They don't have the defendant being incarcerated for life. That doesn't happen most of the time and that's what they want. But what is reasonable, as those of us who have gone to law school know, is the reasonable man's standard and not what the victim individually thinks is reasonable. It is what the general population would think is reasonable. So getting
to the point of reasonable protection, what does that mean? Well, that means that as a victim comes to the courtroom, they might have a seat saved for them so that they don't have to sit in between all the folks that are there for the defendant's family. They might have an escort. If somebody's mad-dogging them in the courtroom from the other side, they might have an escort to their car. The judge might say, hey, hold up. We're going to let the victim leave first, and then the defendant and their folks can leave afterwards. It's being sensitive to these kind of issues, common sense.
it's not a huge production. It's common sense. And most of these things don't cost a dime. Don't cost a dime. So to be treated with fairness and respect doesn't cost anything. To reasonably protect someone and consider, okay, does this person need an ankle monitor or does this person need an order of protection so they're not going to her church or her place of employment or her house. This doesn't cost a dime. We already do it in most jurisdictions, and I assume
from what I've heard from other people here, it happens in Arkansas too. Refuse an interview, deposition, or request. Okay. The prosecutor has a huge obligation, ethical obligation, to turn over anything they have in their possession, including exculpatory evidence. This doesn't change that. What this does is reserve the right of confrontation protected by the Sixth Amendment for the defendant to the time of trial, because that's when it attaches.
It doesn't attach before. And so by the time a charging prosecutor has a case, their ducks are in a row. She already has the victim's statement. She already has the evidence that is going likely to be presented at the time of trial. So what this does is afford the victim the opportunity to refuse or to have guardrails set. There was a parent in Florida who told me of how a defense
attorney interviewed his daughter for two hours. She was 11 years old. There were no rules on what you could do. And he asked her, you liked it, didn't you? So it is not that folks don't want to protect victims, but there has been this kind of culture that has evolved in so many places for
so long that it becomes shocking when we all of a sudden recognize that maybe we could be doing things differently. Upon request to confer with the prosecutor, I've had the pleasure of speaking to prosecutors in this state, and they've all assured me that they speak with all their victims. So I don't believe that that would be a hardship to include something that's enshrined in a Constitution that allows victims to continue to enjoy that in a way that exists long after all of
us are gone. That's the purpose of putting it in the Constitution, that it will survive beyond our lifetime and other generations will be able to enjoy it. To be reasonably heard, okay, this is not where the victim comes into the courtroom and wants to all of a sudden start talking about restitution on the day we're talking about release. Again, this falls on the judge, not the prosecutor, to say, Mr. Victim, I understand you have a lot you want to tell
me about this, but today we're talking about release. And so I'm going to limit your comments to that. A judge absolutely has control over their courtroom. A judge can decide how much and when a person can talk and if it's relevant. So the issue of restitution is not relevant to the issue of release. The person may not have even been convicted at that point. So it is important to understand what that means. Timely disposition. The right to a timely disposition or considered
speedy trial is the right to be free from undue delay. You cannot, and I've had to explain this to many victims in my career, I have to grant a continuance when an expert has not completed their evaluations, when lab reports are not done, when an expert has been hired from another state and has a conflict. It is the role of the criminal justice system. It doesn't fall on
the prosecutor. It's going to fall on the judge to explain how it works. There are some very good reasons to give continuances. And the best example that was given is to avoid an appeal and having to try the case again. No one wants to do that. But when you have someone come in and it's the 15th time they have told you that they don't have a lab report, it might be time to look for a different lab. Or you're here and this is the sixth attorney that you've
asked for. We might need to consider whether this is meandering and you're trying to create a situation where the child who was once 11 is now 15 or 17 or 21 and just wants out and will say whatever it is you want her to say to get away. They are beaten down by the system that does not have accountability and time management and enforcing. The judge should be the gatekeeper. the judge should look at both sides and say, what is the reason for the delay? So it's not
a right to have a trial if you're not ready. It's a right to be someone who moves the case along. And at times you have to set weekly reviews and you have to say, we're going to meet every Friday at three o'clock and you can give me the progress on the case so that I can be sure that everyone is doing what they're supposed to be doing to move this case along. That's what that means. Full and timely restitution. You can't make promises that you can't keep. Absolutely.
Let me explain how full restitution is interpreted in the rest of the country. Full restitution means recognizing that you have had a loss, a full loss, regardless of whether the defendant can pay or not, the person accused of committing the crime, regardless of whether that person can pay because it shows respect to the victim. I understand you've lost $10,000. I'm picking an arbitrary figure. Whether the victim ever recovers that or not may not happen, but that
is addressed after you make an award of full restitution. Who knows if that particular accused defendant cuts a movie deal, inherits a huge amount of money, wins the lottery. Why shouldn't the victim then at that point be able to take their award and go and have that judgment or lien imposed and enforced? The second part of that is timely. So when we talk about timely,
some people can afford to pay $5 a month. Some people can afford to pay $500 a month. That does not take it away from the judge's discretion and hearing, but it does allow it not to be swept under the rug. And what often happens in other jurisdictions is that an award is made, Ms. Defendant, you are going to pay $100 a month on the first day of the third month after your release. Okay? So that doesn't go floating away somewhere. It is expected that
when you're released, you're going to find a job and you're going to make a payment because the victim has a right to be made whole. And rather than taking your $5 and using it in a different way, at least you're paying
Speaker 179
1:39:11
$5 to make this person whole. To be timely informed of all post-conviction
Speaker 172
1:39:17
release proceedings, release proceedings and to be provided information. I think that's a given that
folks should at least have the opportunity to know when their assailant is going to be released so that they can make a safety plan if they need to and to be heard if there's an opportunity to be heard. Standing. Much has been made of standing. This is not victim status. I'm sorry, this is not party status. If you had party status, you'd be able to control an outcome and tell the judge how
you want the outcome to be. A standing is the right to assert, as listed here, only in this moment of time of enumerated rights that you see listed there. And that means that if you don't have one of those rights, as might be restitution, as might be sentencing, as might be plea, then you really don't release, you really don't have the opportunity to just file something and say,
I want to be heard on that. In fact, there recently was a Kentucky case, Marcy's Law recently passed in Kentucky, and the judge shot down the victim and said, you do not have party status. You cannot file something as a party status. So it's not like Arkansas is walking into this as the guinea pig. there are numerous states that have case law and can tell you how it's been done and how it's been interpreted. The court shall promptly rule on a request. Obvious. How does that happen? How does
that happen was a question that I was asked. You raise your hand and say, judge, I didn't get notice. Judge looks over at maybe the prosecutor and says, what happened? Well, she did get notice and I have it documented in my file here and this is the number that we called. And so I would look at the victim and say, is that your number? Oh yeah, that's my number, but it's not been my number for the last two weeks because I changed my number. Well, you can't hold the prosecutor responsible for you not giving the information that you were responsible to give to the prosecutor
so that you could be notified. How do you handle that situation? The judge looks at the victim and looks at the prosecutor, please update your files, please update your phone numbers, this won't happen again. If it's a situation, for example, where a release hearing was set and the victim didn't have the opportunity to tell the judge, you might redo the hearing. That's how that happens. Okay, we're going to bring everybody back in, we're going to review the terms of release, and we're going to see whether or not it's appropriate to release the defendant under these terms. Sometimes it is.
So this is about giving a voice to the victim in the process, not re, you know, the sky isn't falling here. We're not reinventing the wheel. The same system, the same criminal justice system that is in existence today will continue in existence as in every other state after this passes. Um, immunity. Uh, I think we've, we've addressed that. I will tell you that in the five,
in the, I was assigned in Maricopa County, we rotate. So I do family, juvenile, civil, criminal. I was on criminal five years in the five years that I was there. There were a handful of victim attorneys. The state did not provide attorneys, did not provide attorneys, but anyone has the right to hire an attorney, but it doesn't mean that you have to have an attorney to be recognized. Plenty of people represent themselves pro se. Plenty of people as victims come to court
and ask to be recognized without an attorney. So the problems that have been alluded to about confrontation between the prosecution team and the victims rarely happens. And when it does happen, it's not resolved by an evidentiary hearing unless it's an egregious situation. It's handled like an objection. I object, judge. This happened. The judge, give me your position. Give me your
position. We move on. We resolve it and we move on. It is not designed to disrupt the criminal proceedings, and it's not asserted during the trial. It's asserted before, during the plea, or after. Not during the trial while there's testimony going on. So these are things that I would like to bring to your attention as you consider whether or not this is an appropriate resolution for your state. You have a lot. I understand you only send up a few.
this is one that's worthy. I think that your victims deserve to be in the highest law of your land and enshrined, elevated and enshrined forever. Nothing else. I respectfully suggest that this is a topic that needs further discussion. If you're not ready to make that decision, it's not one that you should close the door on. And I welcome any questions that you may have,
and I will do my best to try and
answer them. All right. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:45:10
Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate all the information there. I think you said you're from Arizona. I am. And you said they have a victim's, they've had it for 30 years. Is that what
Speaker 179
1:45:20
you said? 1989, 1990, it's dating us all. Maybe you weren't born. I was born in 88. Okay.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:45:29
And then I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand you. So I think you said that there was 12 states that don't have it.
Speaker 172
1:45:36
14, I think. Let me look at my map. I think there are 14. 14 states that don't have it. And I will tell you, would you like to know
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:45:45
them? No, that's okay. I was just curious. And then you said that, and I think I heard you say that there was 12 states that have Marcy's Law. Correct. And is that the same
Speaker 172
1:45:55
as what we're seeing here? So all of the Marcy's Law states have standing. All of them. Okay. Okay. So it is not the same. I will tell you
that there is a guideline that we offer states and then states design what's best for them. But I will tell you that when you undertake revising something, you want to make it the best that you can make it. And that's the standard, is certain things have to be there. That includes the right to have meaningful and enforceable rights, because without enforceable rights, they're not meaningful. They're not meaningful. They're courtesies. They're niceties. They're,
oh, I'm so glad I was able to put this in this bill because I feel really good about it. But if you can't enforce it,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:46:48
then it doesn't mean anything. And I don't ask this in defense of the resolution or anything. I'm just genuinely curious. You said Kentucky recently passed it. Do you know, and you may not know, has any state repealed any of their victims' rights? Not Marcy's law. Not
Speaker 172
1:47:05
Marcy's law. There have been some that have been challenged on technicalities on how they were placed on the ballot.
Um, but they have, um, they have been passed by tremendous margins of votes by the people. Um, in fact, I think Ohio was somewhere in the eighties, which is unheard of, you know, in, in most places, um, Florida required two thirds, they had 61. Uh, I, I don't remember numbers off the top of my head and I certainly could get them for you if you needed them, but it has been successful.
Okay, thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:47:53
you, Mr. Chairman. Since you're from Arizona, which is a standard time permanent state, I have to ask you a little jest here to kind of break things up a little bit. We just had a bill to try to do
Speaker 173
1:48:08
that. I'm so confused. I can tell you I am perpetually worried
Speaker 172
1:48:13
about whether or not we're going to miss a conference. But, yes, I support it, sir.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:48:19
Awesome. So you all heard that. Someone from Arizona supports being on Standard Time. So my question related to this is some of the prosecutors had mentioned a concern about the cost related to this, that, you know, victims may, you know, request things that are just beyond our capability to be able to provide to them. Can you share with us your experience in other states that have done that in regard to that
Speaker 172
1:48:49
part? So, I believe your state has electronic notification, if not in all areas, maybe just urban areas, and in your rural areas, it's still done the good old-fashioned way. pick up the telephone and we call folks. That's how it's done everywhere. And the concern about notification, if you're already in a state that has that system, it's minimal, okay? Will you need
maybe some more victim advocates? Possibly, you know? Again, Kentucky, because we recently had someone from Kentucky here. And the former DA of Louisville indicated that as a result of Marcy's law, they were able to argue for a budget of more victim advocates. But she did say that that they may do before it. I mean, the state was growing. And when maybe the state is different, but in my
state, every year the prosecutors ask for money. So it's for some, you know, maybe that doesn't happen here, but there's always the need. They're always underfunded. They always need more. And the community is growing. You know, it continues to grow. So are they poorly funded? Yes. And if you're hearing me say that I think prosecutors should have more money, I say yes, they should. But so should the public defender's office. And so should a lot of other folks have more money.
it's just a fact of life that as we grow in our communities we need more funding is it impossible to pass this without funding the answer to that question is you don't need funding to pass this because many of the things that are already in this bill resolution legislation you do you already do a lot of these things and so what does this do it elevates the voice of a victim and enshrines it so that this committee might be real or this community or the victims in this
state or the citizens of this state may really want this. What happens 10 years from now if this is not in the Constitution and someone comes in and says, "We're going to strip these laws. We're going to strip these statutes." That's why we put things in the Constitution so that they can survive. representative hawk you're recognized
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:51:25
thank you mr chair um thank you for coming all the way from arizona i was
screaming at softball girls this weekend so my throat's a little sore um you you
may have mentioned it i was listening very intently but i want you just kind of i want you to kind of repeat something we heard earlier from the prosecutors was that this um there's a it becomes very adversarial between the victims and the prosecutors if something were to go wrong in your opinion and in your experience, what's that look like between the prosecutors and the victims
if this were to be put into
Speaker 172
1:52:02
place? So some of the scenarios that have been mentioned
would only happen if there were some egregious violations, you know, like sneaking around and doing stuff. That doesn't happen in Arkansas. I mean, at least that's what I've been told by the prosecutors, the victims may have a different... Again, I'm here as an observer from an outside. I don't... The victims will have to address whether that happens or not. It is handled swiftly and quickly, okay? And it's usually around opportunity to be heard,
opportunity to be noticed, whether or not you conferred, did you share that there was a plea agreement. You know, it doesn't have to be, prosecutors are well-versed in giving bad news. They know how to do that, you know, and so sometimes that happens, but some of the scenarios as you have talked to attorneys, prosecutors getting sued, no, that doesn't happen. Standing, it doesn't mean that you're going to get sued. It means that you are recognized by the chair
or you're recognized, I was given standing to be here and be recognized for the limited purpose of telling you about this bill or this resolution. That's what that means. Have you seen
Speaker 122
1:53:19
a case at all? Like, let's say, because it is a very traumatic
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:53:23
moment, right? For a victim, no matter what it is, whether it's be a robbery of rape or whatever, where they didn't get, it didn't go their way, right? And they were just so mad, so vengeful, and they said, we want to take this
out on the next person. And that may have been the prosecutor. In your experience, have you ever seen something where they went after the prosecutor who was trying to do what was in the best interest
Speaker 183
1:53:50
of the victim? All of us have been threatened in the criminal justice system. I want to be honest.
Speaker 213
1:53:55
I'm not an attorney. Don't play one on TV. I just want to ask.
Speaker 172
1:53:59
I don't know. Absolutely. Do we get sued? Yeah. Anybody in this country can bring a lawsuit. Whether they're going to prevail or not is a different story. I severed a person's parental rights and I had someone tell me, you need to know what it feels like to lose
your children. I've had people who showed up at my children's school. We had to post pictures of that particular individual in the school so that they would be alerted to who was coming around. This is very real. This happens. I'm not an isolated incident. It happens to prosecutors every day. It happens to judges, and it happens to defense attorneys. Like sometimes when they lose, they get really mad at their defense attorneys. I don't know if the defense attorney
is still here, but you know, there's times when I've restricted what kind of pencil you can have at the table because I can see the animosity that's happening. We see it on TV where people jump over the bench and attack the judge or attack the prosecutor. So if you're asking me, have I seen that kind of thing? Yes, but it's not because of victims' rights. Thank you for being
here. All right, seeing no further questions
by the committee, thank you for those remarks.
Speaker 172
1:55:18
Thank you for your hospitality. Appreciate
it. Representative Brown, would you like to
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:55:26
close for your resolution? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. As was pointed out, victims used to take their cases directly to the judge to have
them determined. And over time, then victims have been represented by the state. And I believe in this process where victims have been, or the crime has been considered
a crime against the state, that inadvertently in the process, it seems to me that victims have sort of taken a back seat to the protections that we have offered to the defendants. And there's nothing in this resolution that is going to interfere with the process of how the court proceeds. As Judge Verdine mentioned, the judge is still in control of the courtroom.
And this, in our Arkansas Constitution and in this bill, it clearly states that, let me find the right spot, except as authorized in subsection G of this section, I'm on page 4, 9 through 16, an individual shall not maintain an action against the state or any public officer or employee of the state for damages or for injunctive, declaratory, or other legal
or equitable relief on behalf of a victim as a result of a violation of this section. So the protections for our public servants are built into our own constitution and into this legislation. So in closing, I would like to say Arkansas crime victims deserve more than just a seat in the courtroom. They deserve a voice that carries weight in the justice system. For too long,
victims have been treated as bystanders in their own cases, left without the ability to enforce even the most basic rights. This amendment ensures that victims are heard, respected, and given the legal standing they need to participate fully in the criminal justice process. We have an opportunity to right this wrong and bring Arkansas in line with the vast majority of states that already recognize these protections. The time to act is now, and I
would appreciate a favorable consideration of this resolution.
All right. Thank you, Representative Brown. As you know, we're not going to be voting tonight. We're just hearing presentations. - Hang
on, hang on, we don't. - Thank you all, thank you committee. Thank you
chair. - Thank you very much, all right. So that concludes the presentation of HJR 1009. Next we have house joint resolution 1013, representative Pilkington.
Representative Pilkington, representative Pilkington. Alright, we're going to
pass over that one. Next we have House Joint Resolution 1014, Representative Beatty.
all right representative Beatty don't get too comfortable it's the state agencies
can't can't hear you okay i said it's like
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:00:13
home you know spend more time here than my apartment representative howard baity district 95 members i'm here to present hjr 1014
as constitutional amendment that is concerning economic development in the state this amendment authorizes the general assembly to create economic development districts within cities counties or cooperative areas to to promote economic development within those designated areas. To kind of go over some of the highlights of the proposed amendment, the General Assembly may provide programs, loans, grants of public money for purposes such as economic diversification,
unemployment prevention, transportation or commerce development, and real estate improvement in Arkansas. Economic development districts may issue bonds to finance projects within their designated areas political subdivisions may provide funding or lend credit to economic development districts for economic development projects and services the property located within economic development districts may be exempt from taxation except for taxes levied by the district itself
the general assembly is empowered to implement the provisions of the amendment with an effective date of January 1st of 2027. The document also contains specific sections amending the Articles of the Constitution related to taxation procedures, the conduct of elections, and repeals and modifications to existing constitutional provisions. Overall, this proposed amendment seeks to enhance economic
development in the state by allowing for the creation of economic development districts and providing resources and incentives to support economic development within those designated areas with that i'll entertain this uh all these questions that my colleagues have
all right thank you representative baity representative ray you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:02:25
recognized thank you mr chairman um so representative can you just
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:02:29
help me get um comfortable with
what is an economic development district is it who runs it is it is there a governing body or can you explain that a little bit more page
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:02:46
page three of the bill page three of the bill economic development districts a designated area within a city a county or cooperative area that's established within the authority by the general assembly so basically what this would allow a city a county a town or other municipal area to designate a certain district or they i mean
the meets and bounds they could decide what that is to create that district so it would only be created by uh by those entities to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:03:19
designate that area so it's a geographical area within a city or within a county yes or i guess it could be across multiple counties i
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:03:29
think it could be across multiple counties but but collectively
the the board that would govern that would be appointed and designated by the elected officials representing the county the city or that
designated area that would have jurisdiction over I guess the meets and bounds what's it what's designated
as the as the
Speaker 226
2:03:53
district so the governing body of the economic development district would be appointed they wouldn't be elected right though those would all be created and this is just clearing
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:04:05
the pathway where this could be permissible okay and how would an economic development district get money well
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:04:15
if this bill is passed then these
economic development districts could issue bonds for the purpose of financing they could also levy taxes inside the district and then I can utilize ad valorum taxes in those districts as well okay so tell
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:04:36
me if I'm misunderstanding But it sounds like under this framework, there are individuals who would be unelected that could then levy taxes
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:04:47
on citizens. Is that right?
These would be individuals that are appointed and placed in their area of
responsibility by the elected officials of that area and district that would be allowed for economic development purposes within that specific area that they would be in power to issue and facilitate taxes. Also, these areas would also be tax-exempt areas, too, that would provide for tax-free zones more or less in those areas.
And I think most of that's covered on page five of the bill, that if the property that they designate as an economic development district is exempt from taxation, then that tax says that property is not going to be changed. and also further down on page five where they deal with bonds and other obligations of the county municipality. It's all kind of created in those areas. Okay. Thank you, Representative.
I'll hop out of the queue
in case others have questions. All right. So can you explain how one of
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:06:07
these economic development districts is created? Who creates it? The districts would be created by, let's just use an example of Ashley County. I'll speak for, you know, base it on home. In Ashley County, if the quorum court decided that they wanted to designate 140-acre tract of land as an economic development district,
they would create that area, designate the area, and then they would... Hang on, who is they? The Quorum Court of Ashley County. Did I not say that? I thought I said that. No, you probably
did, and I missed it. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry, my mind. So the Quorum Court would designate that area, and then they would appoint the delegates, or they could serve in the capacity of the governing body of that designated area. So you could have the elected officials
serving in that capacity over these districts.
Okay, thank you very much. and to follow up on representative ray's question and so
the members if it's created by a governing body say the quorum court i suppose the city council could create one they could okay state of arkansas we could create one i
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:07:27
i don't think it goes i think i think it has to be within the county or city or municipality. I don't think the state would create an economic development
district. All right. And then the members of that are going to be appointed and the governing body could appoint
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:07:44
themselves. Is that right? Correct. And all that comes in a separate bill.
This is just clearing the constitutional pathway to allow those entities to exist. And does this relate to the bill that
Senator Dismang passed that I think may be related to energy projects has
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:08:01
nothing to do with the energy um energy bill through sb 307 that's out
there now um this would just be another economic development tool that that we could we could utilize in the state
okay all right fair enough representative collins you're recognized
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:08:20
thank you mr chair i think that your answer just there kind of maybe addresses my initial question my first question, which is, you know, this amendment doesn't really say anything about a city or a county creating the districts. It just says that they are
going to be created under the authority of the General Assembly. Correct, this
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:08:44
basically what it's doing is it's opening that authority up. There would have to be separate legislation that then would set the guidelines and the rules for which these would be established by the counties and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:08:57
the cities okay well so then if we if we decided under our authority basically
to pass a law saying that a state could create an economic development district i suppose it could then couldn't it
basically because this doesn't limit it to cities or counties it could be done by anyone we designate to
Speaker 235
2:09:18
be able to create one it seems like and i think that's what i tried to say with
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:09:25
the question, someone said, could it be multiple counties? But we wouldn't
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:09:31
have to, the General Assembly wouldn't have to approve each economic development district. That's not the intent. All right, the other question I have is related to the tax-free zones.
So what taxes are not, it looks pretty broad here. It says they shall be exempt from taxation except for taxes levied by the economic development district. so is that property taxes and income taxes and sales taxes yes it could be so that means and just to help me understand it so say the city of Little Rock designated the capital area as a economic development district does that mean that there would be no sales taxes collected on food
sold downstairs in the cafeteria? - It could be. - Oh wow, okay. And so then the, it would be a physical site, all right. So then say, say there was a factory or whatever, or maybe distribution center, something located here. So anything that that business sold and exported out, if the sales tax were collected at the site of where,
and I don't really know how the sales tax works, if it's at the site where the goods are delivered or if it's the site where the goods are shipped from, but wherever it is, if it's located in that district physically, then it's exempt from sales tax
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:10:59
there too, right? - I'm not certain on the sales outside of the district. I think
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:11:03
those would be taxable back. - Okay, and so this works in a lot of ways
differently from like a TIF district where you've got basically, you're freezing the property tax, so this would have no property tax.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:11:16
- I think that is correct. - Okay. - Okay,
Representative Meigs are recognized for a question. - Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:11:26
Mr. Chairman. And I'm kind of gonna bark up the same tree as Representative Collins, 'cause it looks like the way this is written with those tax-free zones. If I'm a county, I could designate the entire county in economic development zone, and now all of a sudden my citizens aren't paying any taxes on anything. Well, Mr.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:11:44
Representative Meeks, I think that's an absurd statement.
I mean, it has to be, it may be exempt from taxation. I don't think that any county
would do that. So I think it's a far stretch. And
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:11:58
you may be right, But I could see how it could be abused to that degree,
maybe not the entire county, but you could start picking winners and losers here. And so my next question related to that is if we're not collecting property taxes, as you know, a lot of that goes to fund the schools, where would that funding be made up at?
Would the schools just no longer
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:12:27
get that funding? Again, those districts would decide what taxes they were going to exempt. And again, I don't think under this plan, that they would be exempting themselves from paying their rightful share to educational institutions. Okay. All right. Representative Berger.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:12:56
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petty, how does this differ from a city developing an economic development area, or is my thinking wrong? Well, I think
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:13:15
the primary purpose of this, one, as far as the issue of bonds to finance the projects and lend money to those economic development districts
as well as to enact the taxation within those districts. I think there's some differences there and some restrictions that we have on the city level. Okay. Plus,
as far as designating a certain area as a tax-exempt area. Okay, thank you. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:13:51
you're recognized. okay and another just to follow
up on the idea of who can establish these districts could
the general assembly say that the governor or the executive could establish one of these districts and then they could do it in a county even when the county didn't want it in in their county if that follows so i mean could that be if it can be done by the state then could it be done without the consent of
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:22
the city or the county where they're doing the district I don't think the bill contemplates that
or the proposed amendment contemplates that.
That's a good point. I'll get further clarity on that, but I don't think that it has to be created by pretty much the governing body of those areas to appoint the leadership of these boards. I understand what you're saying with the state, but I really don't think the intent of the bill is for the state to create the districts, but it's as an economic development vehicle and tool at the county and city
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:14:59
level. I guess we could always limit it.
If and when this passes and we make our law, we could always just say it's for cities and counties and do
it at that point. Thanks. Okay, seeing no other questions in the committee, is there anyone in
the room that would like to speak for or against? Seeing
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:15:24
none, Representative Bagger, do you recognize a close for your bill? Well, members, I appreciate the questions. You've raised some valid points. What I would say is this clears the constitutionality to allow a lot of the questions that you have
or with the companion bill that would follow if the constitutional issues are addressed and identified. And prior to you voting, I'll make certain I give you some of the language for the bill that would answer and address a lot of the specifics related to this constitutional amendment that covers some of those areas of concern as far as the specifics of what we would do. So I'd just go back and say that the overall purpose of the amendment is to create an additional economic development tool within the state to provide resources and incentives to support economic development within those designated areas that this amendment would create.
And with that, I'm closed, and I'll get you some more information on the bill that could be proposed after a constitutional amendment's passed. And with that, I'm closed. I don't know, are we offering a motion to
do pass? No, we're not doing voting today, so I appreciate you. All right, thank you. Next up is HJR 1015, Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:17:06
Please identify yourself with the committee. representative Robin Lundstrom district 18. You're right. Thank you. Chairman Gazaway. This bill actually would require judges to run partisan Republican, Democrat, or independent, and it would give our voters the
transparency that they need. Many of you have gone door to door and one of the questions that you are often asked is what's this judge? Are they Republican or Democrat where what well this puts it back to we changed this in the year 2000 we've been able to function up until then we were became a state in 1836 we were able to function with partisan judges that has changed and all that has done is confuse our voters and with that I would entertain any questions all
right with any questions by the committee representative ray
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:18:13
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Lundstrom, you, I'm sorry, it's been a long day. You referenced a period of time where we had partisan judges. What were those years? Can you repeat that? It was from 1836. Now
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:18:27
in 1836, obviously things were a little bit different. We have quite a storied history, so I couldn't tell you all the way back. I'm old, but not that old. But if you look at the rest of our history, it's obvious we functioned just fine with partisan judges,
and it gave our voters a chance to know exactly what they were getting. We know about more what's in our Snickers bar than
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:18:57
we know what's in our judicial candidates, and
that's not fair to them either. When was it changed? In the year 2000. 2000, okay. I will tell you what you're pointing out is a consistent problem because you've got a combination of problems. One, people want to know where judges stand on the issues.
And party affiliation, while not a perfect indicator of people's stances on the issues, is sort of a intellectual shortcut, if you will, to help people know generally what somebody believes in. But also because of the judicial canon of ethics, judges are prohibited from opining on basically anything. And so the problem becomes you really only,
most people really only know about these candidates, basic biographical facts. I guess my question is, so
I say all that to say I like the general idea of this. I guess my concern, my only concern is, do you think that the voters would approve this? Do you have any data or anything to
support the idea that the voters would sign off on this? No, sir, I don't, but they voted for all of us.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:20:19
They voted for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general. All of us are sitting here because we trusted the voter, and they decided. I think we can trust the voter. I think they understand partisan, Republican, Democrat, and independent, and I think if we put this in front of the voters, they'll have an opportunity to decide. Representative Wright, do you have any
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:20:43
other questions? Well, I do, but I didn't want to hog the microphone if there's other people that have questions.
We don't have anyone else in the queue at the moment. Okay, just one or two more. So how many,
do you know a breakdown of how many states elect judges on a partisan basis
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:21:04
versus other methods? No, I don't. There are so many different ways. It's like asking somebody for their chili recipe. I know it's, sorry for the Snickers and Chili references. It's getting late. But everybody's different. It's interesting.
Some states appoint, but it's appointed by a Republican or Democrat. The president appoints the Supreme Court, again, appointed by a Republican or Democrat. We still go back to partisanship no matter where we are. There was an interesting study done where judges on a three-judge panel voted 97% like. And then on that last 3%, it was partisan. And the voters deserve to know what that worldview is because when it comes to critical, they fall back to worldview. Judges are humans just like we are.
So I don't think it's too much to ask to have that judicial candidate tell us what their worldview is, Republican, Democrat, or
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:21:57
independent. Sure. And as you were putting this together, did you give any consideration to the
method that you just mentioned, which would be an appointment system, similar to the federal system where Our judges are appointed and then maybe confirmed by the Senate or something. Did you give any thought to that? I think
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:22:15
since it functions so well until 2000, I think we can handle going back to that.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions about the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, we do have individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill. Judge David McCormick. I'm signed up to speak against the bill. Judge McCormick, if you would have a seat and state your name, any organization you may be here representing or any capacity in which you're appearing here, and
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:23:02
you'll be recognized to present your remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David McCormick. I'm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:23:08
circuit judge in the 15th Judicial District, Division II. We have three judges in our district. If you want to know what a circuit judge is, please follow me for a week. I have four counties, six courthouses, and I have to juggle those courthouses with three other judges. Okay, so every day, unless I have a calendar to see where I'm going, and my district runs from Moralton to Waldron, which is Oklahoma. So I cover about a third of the state in travel.
So that is what a circuit judge is. Some have less. A few, I think we have one six-county district in this state, but we have 126 judges at the moment. Looking around, I'm probably, other than my good friend over there, I want to identify about the oldest person in the room. I have run, for a district judge, partisan. I've been fortunate enough, as a circuit judge, I have always run nonpartisan. As a matter of fact, in the last 24 years, I think nonpartisan is so important.
I voted in one primary since we became nonpartisan, and that was because I had an employee who was working in a business which I owned, was running for office. The two candidates were both in the same party, so there was not going to be a vote in the general election if I wanted to support or maybe oppose this lady because I'd lose her running my business. But I voted in one primary in that 24 years. I think it is very important that in our current atmosphere, in our state, in our country, I mean, you look at the headline
in the Democrat Gazette, Judicial Criticism Raising Concerns. I mean, that's on the front page, okay? And they go into some of the issues that are out there. But, you know, Amendment 80, as has been noted, went into effect in July of 2001. This amendment was a result of long and studied and engaged effort by many lawyers, judges, law professors, legislators, and citizens. It is the opinion of the Arkansas Judicial Council, who I am here representing as their
president at this time, that there's no compelling reason to revoke what has worked very well for 20 years. Okay, we get into the the political party of a judge should not be expressed or implied in any case before that judge. It is imperative that judges not be perceived as partisans who apply a party litmus test to their cases to determine a particular outcome. Judges are elected to be fair and impartial interpreters of the law, not to make the law. To have judges running as partisan
candidates gives the public the perception that by electing a certain political party candidate that one should expect a judge to rule with that party's position. Okay, independence, impartiality, those are two essential ethical pillars for all judges. Any chink or entanglement that runs counter to that impartiality and independence is not tolerated under our code of judicial conduct canon 2 specifically reads that judges must not permit political relationships
to influence judicial conduct or judgment partisanship strikes at the very heart of judicial independence that no doubt is why our ethical code specifically requests that we not be swayed by partisan interest it's how would you feel if you were in front of a judge who was running as one party and some hot issue is the other party has a different position and you know this judge ran for a party that differs from what you are then you think already i'm two strikes
behind in front of this judge okay like i said we don't make the law we interpret the law you know judges wear black robes we don't wear red robes we don't wear blue robes we wear black robes if you remember lady justice which we all have seen stands there with her blindfold and the scales of justice in her hand she doesn't have a colored robe she also has a blindfold on because she's supposed to decide the case on the
law and the facts you know having partisan judges except effectively removes their blindfolds and opens the door for folks to think that cases are being decided on who belongs to which political party. This will lead to serious erosion in the public's respect for court decisions, but more importantly, lessen the respect of people for the rule of law, which is one of the cornerstones of our government. Politicizing the judiciary in today's divisive world will make the judicial citizen recoil
like a salted snail, okay? And another judge gave me that comment, which I wish I'd thought up. But I'd say our judiciary is under attack. It has seldom been in our nation's history. We must do all that we can to try to not only be impartial, but to appear to be impartial. I would say that the Arkansas Judicial Council has voted unanimously to oppose this because we do not think it is in the best interest of our judiciary or the citizens of this state.
And with that, I would ask if there are any
questions. All right. It looks like we do have several questions by
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:28:46
the committee. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, I appreciate your
testimony, and I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. But, I mean, the problem that I described in my question to Representative Lundstrom, would you recognize or acknowledge the problem that exists today, which is that a lot of voters literally have no idea what,
they know almost nothing about the people that they vote
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:29:10
for for judge because they don't run on a partisan basis. I understand, but partisanship, it says this party takes a certain position. If you want to say abortion, okay, one party has very stringent views one way and one party the other. If I'm running as one party's representative and the issue comes up in front of me, people are going to automatically assume that if I am supporting the party from which I'm elected, that I must have some allegiance to that party and some leaning in that direction.
And it's, as I said, it's not only do we have to be impartial, we have to appear to be impartial. And that's, believe me, in every case, or most every case I hear every day, one side loses. In your job, do half the people walk
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:29:58
out of there mad at you every day?
I understand that you don't want to appear impartial. I guess my question is, what is your solution to the problem
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:30:08
that I outlined? Well, you cannot start expressing opinions on issues.
I mean, you're a blank slate to some extent. You're supposed to be learned in the law. You have to be practicing so long in order to run for a judge. And you're supposed to decide the case in front of you based on the facts and the law as it exists. Your personal opinion does not come into that. And that's hard for some people to understand. But you must separate your personal views from the legal. I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:30:37
agree. A good judge should do that. But what is a voter to
do? We have a system where judges are elected.
If you can't express an opinion and voters don't know what your political affiliation is, how are they supposed to make a determination on who's the best candidate?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:30:55
All these mailers look the same. To some extent, out in my part of the world, every rural fire department there is has a pie supper every election. I can't tell you how many pies I bought because as a candidate, you go to all of these events. You go to a Republican event, you go to a Democratic event. You answer the questions that you can, but you ask me, do I think that joint custody is a good idea
or do I think you should prefer the mother or the father? I hear a lot of domestic cases. That is an issue that's in front of me repeatedly. Now, should I express an opinion whether I think a mother or a father
Speaker 280
2:31:32
is better? People want to know that, but I should not express an opinion on
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:31:37
that. Okay. Well, with all due respect, I think there's better ways to pick a judge than who buys the most pies at a supper. I'll move on to my next question. So, there are states that elect judges on a partisan basis.
Yes, sir. Do people not have a fair system of justice in those states? I'm not learned in
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:31:55
the laws and justice in other states. I try to keep up with this state only, sir. Okay? I won't say that they don't. My concern is being fair and impartial to the citizens in the state of Arkansas and particularly in my district. Okay. All right. I'll hop out. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:32:21
Judge, I appreciate you coming and sharing your opinion and your thoughts on this. But I just want to ask, you've stressed it pretty strongly today, belief on impartiality and that judges don't make the law, that you just interpret the law. So based on that, how would you explain to me your belief that it's appropriate to come before this committee and take a position on this piece of legislation?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:32:52
Because I think it promotes my neutrality. I think it promotes my ability to
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:32:57
appear impartial to the public. I am not taking a public stand that I believe this party's platform or this issue with this party is one I should support versus the issue of the other party on that particular issue. It means that I don't take those
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:33:13
positions. I take the facts in front of me and the law and decide the case. And just a follow-up, if I'm allowed.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:33:26
Is there any precedent like for a Supreme Court justice or a district court judge appearing before Congress to advocate for or against any specific legislation? Is there anything out there from your knowledge of the law and your judicial background
that would address that? I
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:33:49
think you're somewhat limited. I think, as I mentioned, the Code of Judicial Conduct specifically prohibits certain actions.
And if we violate those actions, then there's a committee, the Judicial Discipline and Disability Committee, which is out there to address those concerns should we stray from what our functions are as a judge. And it's not uncommon to hear from them, quite honestly. If I don't hear from them a couple of times a year, I figure I haven't done my job well enough, okay? Regularly get complaints. Well, again,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:34:21
I thank you for sharing your comments, your remarks, and appreciate your service to the state. Thank you, sir.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:34:29
Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here today to express your thoughts on this bill. I have a couple of different questions, but you mentioned picking red or blue. But under this bill, if somebody didn't want to pick a party affiliation, they could still run as
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:34:49
an independent if they chose to do that, right? You could. How many independents are elected to any office in this state at all?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:34:55
Sure. So I think that leads to
my follow-up question of that. I mean, I would imagine that you pick a party affiliation because that provides more information to the voters.
I mean, that's up to the voters to decide who they want to elect based on that, right? But okay, so, and then kind of switching gears, and maybe I misheard you, you mentioned at the end of your remarks, you said something about the judiciary being under attack.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:35:19
Yes, sir. I mean, read the front page of the Democrat Gazette today. It's talking about, and it starts out, it's talking about Mexico and then some other countries, but it talks about how is that filtering into the United States, and you can look from the president and members of Congress, unfortunately, every move made by either is litigated by
the other side. And every day you see constant attacks on judges. Well, this judge was appointed by this president or that judge by the other, and therefore we must infer that they are partisan. And, you know, if, of course, that's an appointment system, that's different than an election. And here we're not appointed, so we're not beholding to a Republican or a Democratic governor who might appoint us. We are beholden to the citizens of the state. And yes, it's hard for them to know, but there's a shield there intentionally that we're supposed to be impartial.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:36:14
And it's the duty of the citizen to become more informed, to ask about their candidates, to see how they have ruled in other cases if they've been on the bench, see how they conducted themselves as an
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:36:26
attorney. Or most of us, by the time we get to be a circuit judge, we've probably been a, I'm old enough, I used to be, hate to go to criminal court, I'd come back with more clients than I went over there with. There were no public defenders. Young lawyers got appointed to lots of cases. Okay, I've defended cases. I've been city attorney, prosecuted cases, a deputy prosecutor.
I've been a municipal judge down their district. But most attorneys in smaller counties in our state, that's your career. You work your way up from doing those things into the other. So you have a past there. You have a record. And yes, the voters should be more informed. And a lot of times they're not. And I think that is to their, you know, on peril, just picking the first name that's there.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:37:17
Sure. So, but to clarify, we had partisan races up until I think Representative Lundstrom said year 2000. 2000, right. So are you saying that you feel that if we go back to that system, that's going to lead to an attack on the judiciary that
we didn't have before? No, we've got plenty
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:37:34
enough attacks as it is. It just gives a little more ammunition to the people that want to attack us as
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:37:40
to why we decided a case a certain way. I think it just adds to it, and there's plenty of ammunition out there to start with.
I mean, the judge of Arizona mentioned it doesn't protect us. I've been sued twice in the last year over decisions I made in a divorce case that started in 2019. Representative Hawk you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:38:05
and thank you for coming to testify today. I think this is an interesting debate. I got a couple
questions. My first is is there and I don't know I'm asking so are there term
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:38:18
limits on judges? We don't have term limits. We have what we call the 70 rule is you can be elected up to age 70. If you are elected after age 70 then you can do that, but you forfeit all your retirement. Okay. Now, the S doesn't mean Superman, but it doesn't mean super stupid either. Okay. I mean, if you get elected, my last term, I was 66 when I filed. I'll be 72 when I go off the bench. I will obviously not going to run again, but that's the
Speaker 288
2:38:52
current law is you can serve until you pass 70. I guess I asked the question
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:38:58
just mainly because You keep talking about the code of judicial conduct, right? And look, I've got multiple judges that are friends of mine that, you know, I've tried to help get elected occasionally. But the hardest thing that I hear, the thing I hear the most from voters is I go to that pancake breakfast or that thing and I ask
them a question and they say they can't talk about it.
They can't talk about it. That's true. And I think to Representative Ray's question, I understand the neutrality of it, but at the same time, like, if
I'm sitting here trying to select who's best for the job and nobody can ever answer the questions that I'm asking, it's just a coin flip at that point of who's best for the job. And
at least the partiality of partisan would kind of give us an idea of where they stand. Would you not agree? Probably,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:39:52
yes, but again, you're back to making a partisan decision that you think that judge is going to rule a certain way.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:40:01
And, you know, I've been around long enough. When I was growing up, my father was a sheriff. I've knocked on doors since I was six years old. I've been thrown out in towns with cards, and I'll pick you up tonight, son. I've seen partisan elections. I've seen nonpartisan. I've run both ways. I just think for judiciary, the attack that we're under, the more that we can do to help us appear impartial, it's not going to work. People are going to pick and choose anyway, but unless you change our system, as this lady mentioned, some states, the judges are appointed.
Some states elect judges, and then you have retention elections, an election should that judge remain or not. There's a multitude of ways to elect judges. Ours is not the only system or is it the perfect system, but it's what we have at the moment. So going back to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:40:55
the code of judicial conduct, I think back to like 2022 and there were judges protesting outside the governor's mansion over a death penalty, you know, death penalty cases and things of that nature.
Speaker 292
2:41:07
Went to law school with one of them, good friend. We
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:41:13
know a few things the same, but. Wouldn't that be showing
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:41:18
like that's not being biased, is it? In my personal opinion, is I did not think that that was an appropriate action for a judge to take. I understand this judge, if I've had discussions with him, we don't agree politically on lots of things, but he's still my friend. We went to law school together, and we have differences on opinions. I don't think it was proper, but that is what judicial discipline is there for.
If you did not think that that judge's conduct was appropriate, then you file a complaint with judicial discipline, and they investigate it, and at times they will send me a letter saying, please give your side of this story, and I can give them everything I've got. So that's, I think, how you address, if you think a judge is acting inappropriately on the bench, judicial discipline is there for that purpose. Thank you for
showing up today. Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Judge, for coming and talking with us tonight. First of all,
I'll start out by saying, I might not be speaking for everyone in this room, but I bet they can relate to this. It's a question we get all the time when we're out on the campaign trail. Is this person a Republican or a Democrat? And I apologize if that's been said, but that shows, you know, and people will almost not let you leave. They'll say, okay, tell me, which one do you think type of deal?
So it shows that there's actually a group out there that really wants that. But the question I wanted to get to was this. You said that by doing this, that we would be taking Lady Justice's blindfold off. Yes, sir. That was my comment. So explain that to me, please, because let me get more down to the roof. If you were acting partisan as a judge, all right, then you might say, okay, you've taken the blindfolds off.
But the blindfold coming off or not ever would be a judge's conduct, not yours, I'm sorry, a judge's conduct, not necessarily whether they ran as a Republican or a Democrat. Wouldn't you agree with that? Well,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:43:28
I think you're back to you could look at decisions. I mean, say, custody. I mean, the legislature seemed fit in the last session, I think, or several years ago, to go to saying joint custody is preferred, okay? Now, I grew up in front of judges who they didn't call Divorce Day Mother's Day for nothing, okay?
Because if you represented the mother, you were going to get pretty much everything you wanted, okay? But that is no longer the law, and, you know, you go back and look far enough. that was what was there, but things have changed, and I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:44:01
must follow that law, whether I agree with how I was basically raised in the system, or I agree with the change it was made. I must make my decision on what the law is now, not what I wish it was, not what my personal view on it is, whether I think a mother is better as a parent or a father. That's not the law. It's now equal. I have to make
make my decision on other factors other than who is what parent? Follow on.
You're recognized. So, but that doesn't answer my question. Okay. All right,
how does saying that you were elected as a Democrat, a judge was elected as a Democrat or Republican, that doesn't take the blindfold off. Your actions are what takes, a judge's actions, excuse me, are what takes the blindfold off, right? Yes, sir.
I mean, so do you pull back your statement then that you said that by making you run as a Democrat or Republican, we would take the blindfolds
off of Lady Justice? I think if you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:45:06
make us run that way, we do. I mean, you can take the, I don't know, an issue, say, such as gay marriage, okay? I mean, one party will support it and one party will be against it. Now, if I'm in court and I have two people of the same sex asking for divorce,
do I say, well, I ran as a
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:45:28
certain party and therefore my position ought to be this as far as gay marriage? It's the law of the land. But if my position is such, then, you know, because this party who supported me and who I'm obligated to support their position, then I think it to some
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:45:45
extent makes my decision suspect and
appear to be partisan. So then you agree with me, then, that if long as you're judging fairly,
then the blindfold is still on Lady Justice.
Yes, sir. All right, so making someone run as a Republican or a Democrat does not take off the blindfold of Lady Justice. It
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:46:08
creates an inference of partiality because the Republicans support this view. So if I run as a
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:46:14
Republican, I must have chosen between that view and the Democratic or an independent view on that issue. People infer that because of which party you run for, regardless of where that is your position. And you can talk to them until you're blue in the face and say, well, I ran as a Democrat last time, but I'm against this issue the Democrats support.
I mean, they're going to not believe you. You just, you need, you know, we are human. Yes, sir. We have our own biases, how we were raised, you know, our communities, our
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:46:46
parents, our religion. But we have to do everything we can, as I said, not only to, you know, be impartial,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:46:54
but to appear. And that is the hard part, is appearing to be impartial. And it's tough at times, okay? It can be, and it is. I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:47:02
mean, you're guaranteed to make folks mad every day a whole course.
Somebody leaves mad. Well, and I do
appreciate what you have to deal with as far as trying to look unpartisan, but I think
we'll agree to disagree on the blindfold. And I'm not trying to
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:47:17
be evasive, and I know that some lawyers can be, and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:47:20
I apologize if you think I still answer, but I've tried to answer it. Thank you. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you very much,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:47:34
Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony today.
I wanted to follow up just on
a couple of things that you had said. You referenced the black robe and blue states and red states and these kinds of things. The black robe has been worn long before states were referred to as blue and red. That's true. Interestingly enough, really the first time that term was used was in the 2000 election, which is when Arkansas, just so happened in the year 2000, stopped having partisan judicial races. You referenced the ethical code that would prohibit judicial candidates or judges from having partisanship or partisan stances.
My question was, with regards to the ethical code, was that forbidden prior to the change in partisan judicial elections in 2000? I'm not
Speaker 312
2:48:25
aware of that particular provision having been changed. Yeah, I'm not an expert
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:48:31
on judicial code, but I doubt that's a pretty basic principle. Not only should you be impartial, you should appear it. So I highly doubt that that's been changed probably since the code was implemented. Well, and that
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:48:47
makes my point, I think, even stronger.
So for 164 years in Arkansas,
we had partisan judicial elections, and your belief is that the code was probably, the ethics code was probably the same. So that ethical code wouldn't prohibit judicial candidates from running as partisan.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:49:14
honest. For 164 years it didn't, and maybe for 24 years it might have.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:49:21
We're trying to improve the public perception of the judiciary, okay? And if things don't change, sir, I mean, when I was growing up, I remember watching the votes be counted in the primary in my county. My dad was running for sheriff. There were seven Republican votes in the whole county in the primary. Probably now, if you had 50 that voted Democratic in the same county after 40 years, the landscape has changed greatly.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:49:52
Judges should not. Well, and I appreciate that the political landscape of a county and many in the state have shifted. You mentioned public
perception, and I think that's important. I want to refer back to a couple of things some of my colleagues have said, is that the public, it seems, is more oftentimes the voters don't know who the judicial candidates are. They don't know what they stand for. And if you're referencing public perception being not so good, don't you think informing
Speaker 312
2:50:27
the public would be beneficial for the public?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:50:31
If I say that I'm a Democrat, that means I must approve probably of more of their stances on issues than the Republican Party. If I say I'm a Republican, then it'd be the converse of that. If I'm taking a position for one party or the other, it, to some extent, is going to infer that I believe their platform more than I believe the other party's. And I appreciate that position.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:50:54
It was referenced earlier that if a judicial candidate wanted to run as an independent, they could do that.
Yes, sir. And your response was, well, how many independents have been elected? So my follow-up to that would be just because independents are not commonly elected doesn't mean that individuals couldn't run as an independent. But your response would suggest that running as an independent may not lead to you being elected or an individual being elected.
So is it more about electability or is it about perception?
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:51:29
Well, it's somewhat both. I mean, quite honestly, if parties are out there, you're going to probably pick the party that you think is in power at the present time to run.
And you run it as an independent. Yes, you would free yourself of that. But if you're truly and honestly, I'm not running just for the heck of running. It's not an inexpensive proposition to run a race over four counties. Okay? but it's just a situation where the more you can
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:51:59
appear to be independent, the better. And I understand a lot of my answers are still blank slate answers because judges, to some extent, have to have that appearance of we can't be out taking stands on issues.
Now, granted, you have your First Amendment right, but you have to
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:52:17
watch what you say if you're going to be an effective judge. If I'm out there advocating some position day after day and you come in court in front of me and I rule against you, it may not even be related to that issue, but you're going to think that I have some bias because maybe you are of the other party. Based on, you know, your comments, which we're grateful
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:52:36
for, you came into the meat grinder and that's what this committee is. I've been here once before and the scars have barely healed.
No cakewalks here, sir, I understand. I didn't even get to testify. But based on kind of our back
and forth and some of the comments that were made, I hear a lot about the appearance of being independent.
And I understand that. However, an appearance is one thing. But what the voters want to know is where these candidates stand. And I think it's also the sense of this committee and the legislature, by and large, that we hear from our constituents that they want, that the voters want to know what the judicial candidates stand for.
And my guess is, if this were to be on the ballot, that the people would vote strongly in favor of it. What do you believe, what do
Speaker 300
2:53:28
you think about that? I think they voted strongly in favor of making this
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:53:33
nonpartisan before. So I think it's a matter of who gets out and campaigns the hardest. But I guess, what is it, Superman, truth, justice, and the American way? Okay. So
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:53:43
would it be fair to assume that you approved the voters deciding? You approved it for $2,000, and if it went to the ballot box again, you would support the voters' decision?
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:53:53
Sir, yes. I take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of Arkansas and of the United States of America. And if our law says that, you know, I must run as a partisan or independent, then I'll make my choice. Yes, sir. But I think given the choice now, it's better, people are better served. They should, well, knock the voter, but they should become better informed on the issues. And I can tell you running races, voters start in picking their candidates. They may pick the governor, then come down to the state attorney general, whatever, then legislators.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:54:28
And about two weeks before the election, oh, yeah, we've got a judge's race
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:54:33
who's running. And while I appreciate that, I think one of the most contested and significant elections this past election cycle was very towards the top of the ballot, and it was for our Supreme Court. And so I think voters do see judicial races at the top, and I do think it's important, and I do appreciate your testimony. Is there anything else you'd
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:54:54
like to say in regards to my question? No, I thank you for your time and consideration. And like I said, this is my last term, so I express an opinion freely on it.
It won't affect me a whole lot, but I think for my successors, I think it's hard enough and the Internet is not making it any easier to go online and I can call you all the names I want, Whereas if I sit here today and I call you that, we might step in the hall and resolve it. But it's made it so much easier for people to criticize judges. I mean, I've had a page dedicated to my impeachment online. I've actually been elected to the National Judicial Hall of Shame.
I've yet to receive my award for that. Congratulations. It was a case I was appealed three or four times. It was affirmed every time. You know, it doesn't happen all the time. But it's, you know, just we need voters to try to become more informed on their judicial candidates and not rely solely upon what party they say they are being supported by. Well, thank you for
Speaker 310
2:55:59
your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All
right. Judge McCormick, I do have a few questions.
We do still have a couple more people in the queue. So, number one, I appreciate you being here today, and I appreciate you answering this
committee's questions. And in the true spirit of impartiality, I'm not trying to take a position one way or other on this bill, to be clear. But
I do have some questions. One, I think, you know, in support of your testimony, we have three branches of government. We have the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch.
And we recognize that they all fulfill a unique role. The executive
branch has to enforce the law. Execute the law. The legislative branch makes the law. And I think, as you said earlier, the judicial branch interprets the law. Is that a fair assessment of
the three branches of government and their roles? In its purest form, that is how it is supposed to
work. Yes, sir. All right. And, you know, understanding that, you know, each branch of government having that unique role, one of the unique positions that we put the judiciary in, the judicial branch of government, is that position of impartiality in interpreting the law. Is that fair to say?
Yes, sir. And so, if we require judges to run partisan, I think the point would be that we would be inserting politics into a branch of government that by design is supposed to be impartial, it's supposed to be about fairness and justice, and without the influence of politics. Is that fair? In 30 seconds, you've eloquently
Speaker 307
2:57:50
better expressed what I meant to say than I did, sir.
Yes. Well, I don't know about that. And so, I take it to be that's your principal objection to this proposed resolution. Is that right? We're inserting politics into a branch of government that, by design, is meant to be impartial and to not be political. Correct. Okay. It's interesting because I think back to a class that I had when I was in college. I was a political science major.
I had a class in undergrad, Constitutional Law and Politics. And we had, in our book, said, essentially, and I'm paraphrasing this, but it was the judicial branch. And it had an interesting title because below it it said, the most political branch, which I thought was very interesting. And so I think to some of the questions that you fielded today, the point is is that it is impossible, however, it seems to be, to remove politics entirely from the judicial branch or from considerations related to the judicial branch, including how we elect, appoint, or have judges take the bench.
Would you like to expound upon that a
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:59:15
little bit? Well, I mean, human nature, we all want to win. We want our side to come out on top, okay? But I think, as I said earlier, every step we can take to try to achieve that goal of it being the impartial branch of government, I think we should pursue. Is it going to be perfect? No. No system is perfect. But I think the more we do to try to make it that way, the better off our society and the citizens of this state will be served. Okay.
And one of the things that's been brought up, however, and I think Representative Beatty asked some questions along these lines, and I really didn't want to ask this question, didn't want to go here, but since it's been brought up so many times. You know, when we talk about the judiciary and the importance of fairness and impartiality, in the legislative process, of course, we don't have that. This is, by nature, a very political process. The election process is political, and once we're here, it's political, and we consider all the political issues.
The judiciary has a different charge, as I think we've established, related to impartiality. But you brought up the joint custody bill, for example. There were judges who came and testified, circuit judges, who came and testified about that bill. And that was a substantive piece of legislation. I think you've admitted yourself that it's the court's role to be the interpreters of the law and expressly to not take political positions.
So how do you feel about judges appearing before legislative committees and expressing opinions on substantive pieces of legislation and inserting themselves into the political process? To some extent, I think it depends on
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:01:09
which they're trying to use their judicial title to assert their position versus is this truly a position the judiciary ought to take. And I think that the legislature has to hear
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:01:22
somewhat from judges is how practical is some of these laws that are passed.
You know, how do you decide certain issues? Like I said, I was raised in front of a judge who mothers won. All the time, if you represented mother, you were going to walk out there with pretty much what you wanted. That doesn't mean my attitudes and positions haven't changed over the years, but you knew your judge, you knew how he or she ruled, and you structured your case accordingly. But I think to help us to stay neutral, the more you can do that, and to some extent, judges testifying, you run into the fine line again.
a judge still has their First Amendment right, but where does that stray over the line into violating the Code of Judicial Conduct? And that's a gray area, okay? And I think sometimes some of us stray and get into testifying things we shouldn't. But again, that's a personal view, and if you think that I've strayed today, I will hear from judicial discipline soon, and you're free to file. I'll let you find their number if you'd like, okay? No, sir.
No, sir. You won't find me doing that, and I'm certainly not making any.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:02:35
No, I'm just saying, I've heard from a letter in my desk this morning saying, well, a complaint had dismissed. I had to
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:02:44
respond to one last week that is still pending, so. No, certainly
not making any allegation along those lines about you being here today, but I do think it raises an important point, and I'll go back to, that when we talk about judges and their role as being fair and impartial and wearing the black robe and not being involved in politics, certainly if that's the position, which I think is the correct position,
then when this legislature is considering a substantive piece of legislation, a policy question, should judges be appearing who wear the black robe, who have to be fair and impartial, whose duty it is to interpret the law, not make the law, should they be appearing before legislative committees expressing opinions? Because my understanding is that the Judicial Council, number one, has a lobbyist. Is that right? That's correct. And so if the Judicial Council takes a position on a bill, they could send their lobbyist up here.
Does that be fair to say? That's what we're paying for. As opposed to, say, a judge who wears the black robe, who may be, not who may be, but in most cases will be, required to opine one way or the other on the law that this body passes, this separate constitutional established body of government, branch of government, will have to make decisions about that. And if they were taking positions on substantive policy, kind of interferes with that
impartial role that you talk about.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:04:13
Wouldn't you agree? It can, yes, sir. And again, we're back to where is that? There is no bright line,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:04:21
okay? And there are issues, though, that, you know, we feel strongly about this being one of them. You know, is that we simply think that this is one way that is better for the judiciary. And some bills we think that would not help the judiciary that we think that we should speak out on. But when you get into real substantive issues such as, you know, custody and child support and many other issues,
then, you know, it's back to that substantive issue that you decide and then
I apply. Yeah, while we're talking about the Judicial
Council, I mean, I think this is an important maybe distinction to make. You know, certainly if the issue before the legislature were judicial retirement, how your retirement plans are affected, or... The 70 rule. Something related to your job, the benefits that you receive from the state of Arkansas
specifically related to your job. Certainly as a group, collectively, it would be entirely appropriate for your organization like many others to be here advocating for the best interest of judges collectively on those types of issues. But I'll just go back to the point. That's not what we've seen. We've seen a lot of judges here testifying on matters of policy, of substantive legislation. And, you know, we've kind of heard it that, well, this is a vote of
Judicial Council. Well, you know, that may be, that may be, hang on,
know, the only, no, no, let me finish. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I apologize. So, you know, that may be the position of a majority of judges, but, you know, certainly all the judges, it can't be
representative. I wouldn't think of all the judges in the state and you're taking policy positions. So again,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:06:24
if you'd like to make any remarks in that regard. Well, again, And we're just back to, as far as I know, the Judicial Council has only taken one vote on one issue during this session of the legislature.
And that was last Friday when we voted to oppose this and express our concern as a body to this particular piece of legislation. I don't know that we've taken a formal stand. We may have our lobbyists asking to oppose or to support other legislation that is out there. But taking a vote as a body, I stand
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:06:54
to be corrected, but I think it's the only one we've taken. Yeah, no, and that's
fair enough. And then back to Representative Beatty's point, I thought he made
a good point that have you ever seen a member of the United States Supreme Court appear before Congress or before a congressional committee in relation to a piece of substantive legislation pending before Congress?
I can't say that I have, sir. Or have you ever seen a U.S. District Court judge, a trial court judge at the federal level appear before United States Congressional Committee to talk about
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:07:29
a substantive piece of legislation? That I wouldn't know for certain, but I would be surprised that there hadn't been some. Interesting. But I don't know that. That's speculation on my part, and I'll admit
that. And, again, I really didn't want to go down that line of questioning, but joint custody has been brought up a couple
times and other things that I guess I just couldn't resist.
Speaker 334
3:07:53
Well, that's fine. I mean, it's made for some interesting cases and some harder decisions to make, okay? Since we're talking about
impartiality. All right. Fair enough. Representative Ray, you're recognized. I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman. I have
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:08:06
a statement. Are we going to have a discussion session or just go ahead and make my statement? If you can phrase it in the form of a question,
Speaker 337
3:08:17
that would be best. I don't really need a response
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:08:20
to it. I have something I want to say for the benefit of the members of the committee,
but I don't necessarily need anyone to respond to
my question. Go ahead. Go ahead. You're recognized. Go ahead. Well, I'm not going to
address it as a question, but, you know, I appreciate what the judge has said about, you know, the lady justice and the blindfold and all of that. And it's hard to argue with that, but the reality is that anybody seeking public office has political views.
That's just a fact. I have views. Everyone at this table has political views. The judge sitting at the end of the table has political views, and that's just a reality. And, you know, when you have, I think Representative Hawke may have alluded to this, but when you have somebody like Wendell Griffin strapping himself to a gurney to protest the death penalty, people have views even if they try to hide them. So it makes some of this stuff into a bunch of kabuki theater.
And I don't know if Representative Lundstrom's proposal is the best way to address it, but I will tell you that there are four or five different ways that states choose their judges. That is correct. And I think that the way we do it is quite possibly the worst. You can have judges appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. You can have judges, like Tennessee does it, you can have judges appointed by the governor and you can have them stand for a retention election up or down at the end of their term.
You can elect judges on a partisan basis like Alabama does it. But our system where we elect judges on a nonpartisan basis where voters know nothing about them and then these judicial candidates are prohibited per their canon of ethics from even issuing an opinion is a system that is wholly unfair to the voters, in my opinion. And so I don't know if Representative Lundstrom's solution is the best way to do it, but it is a way to do it that is better than the way that we have now.
And my message to the folks who work in this space would be, if they don't like this, they should come up with an alternative. Because eventually, if it's not referred out this session, something like this will get referred out eventually. Because I think the people are demanding it. And this idea that you can't answer difficult questions, you can't answer political questions in a way that gives away your impartiality, I just disagree with.
I mean, the issue of custody has been brought up multiple times. How hard is it to just say, you know, as a judge, I am committed to following the law and doing what is fair in every instance. And there's not a one-size-fits-all solution. There's not an instance where, you know, the mother's side is always right. There's not an instance where the father's side is always right. All these cases are fact-dependent, and we have to follow the
law, and we have to apply the facts as they exist.
I mean, I didn't go to law school, but I just gave
an answer that I don't think would bias anybody. So I just think there's got to be a better way to do this. I
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:11:53
don't disagree with what you said, sir. It's to some extent what I've been trying to say. It's not a perfect system. There are other ways out there to elect judges, and certainly that's this body's prerogative to look at those, and if they choose to elect judges a different way, that's what you're elected to is to decide that, to decide the law. And it's my job and my brethren's job to apply that law regardless of personal opinions.
And the more we can stay away from the personal opinions, the less criticism we'll get. We're still going to get a lot. That comes with the territory. If you don't want it, don't sign up
for this job. You're going to get it. All right. While we're on that
point, and to be clear, I do want to try to stick clearly to what we're talking about, which is partisanship in judicial elections. We're not really debating whether or not there should be elections.
That's at least secure for now. But whether or not they should run partisan is the question before us today. But I do think Representative Ray brings up a good point that, I mean, this is on voters' minds. And maybe there is a better way to do it. But let's just be clear, be honest. The appointment process is not devoid of politics either. In fact, that's a highly political process where, you know, if you think you're going to remove the politics out of that, you're kidding yourself.
So this is certainly worthy of further discussion, and I appreciate those points, Representative Ray.
Next we have— make one comment on your point
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:13:30
is the best way to get to be appointed to be a united states district court judge is have a roommate from law school who is now a u.s senator okay look at those connections unfortunately one of my law partners didn't get elected so there went my chances to be a federal judge but it's not perfect either probably be
a pretty good uh pretty good help
representative collins you're recognized well i had
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:13:57
a question a while back but the moment did kind of passed. But I actually will just go ahead and make a closing statement along the lines of what Representative Ray did. You know, Representative Beck said earlier, and it's true, that a lot of people want to know, is this judge, candidate, Democratic or Republican? I think what you've said, which makes sense to me, is that while they want to know that, it's not really the most relevant piece of information. And in fact, it's a distracting piece of information because
you're learning about someone's political orientation, which in what they're being asked to do as a judge, it shouldn't really deal with politics. It should be about interpreting the law in as neutral a way, focused on the facts and the law as possible. I think that's right. And I do think it's more of a misleading distraction than it is a helpful piece of information. I mean, I think most of the time when they're making decisions, for example, we talked a lot about custody. Is that a Republican position or a Democratic position on either side? I don't know.
I don't think it really should be or is. And so, you know, I think although people may want to know that, I don't think it's really helpful information for this particular role. But I just, I guess I would just end with this. To Representative Hawke's point, I think is also a good point. And Representative Ray mentioned this sort of similarly. People do want more information and They want to understand what the judges stand for, and there are things that are important in judicial philosophy, judicial orientation, maybe in some cases opinions, maybe it doesn't have to be opinions, but I do think that the judiciary should grapple with that and figure out maybe ways to get information about judges out to people so that we don't have to go to partisan elections, because I actually think that would be a mistake, but I do think we need to figure out ways.
and if it should be handled by the judiciary, I believe, figure out ways to communicate to voters a little bit more clearly because I think that information should be given to voters in some way, the useful information that voters do need
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:16:06
and want. And I think what you're saying is we should have been the judicial code of conduct, and that would probably be the best way to address what you just raised. If you want to unfetter us to allow us more freedom to state certain things, then you go back to the judicial code of conduct, which says, here's what I can do, here's what I can't do,
and open that up so that we are freer to discuss more issues or express more opinions. Because right now, I'm still bound by that code. I think that's what I'm
Speaker 298
3:16:35
saying. Thank you. I'm not trying to... No, you got it. That's it. Okay. Thank you.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:16:43
Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you. You brought up something that just spurred something I was thinking about. You talk about
the code of judicial conduct. Yes, sir. Is that just like a pact between you guys, or is that something in law?
Like, is that something that you guys just created this thing, and you've got this code, or is that a
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:17:02
law that's in place? Well, it's a code that's out there that's enforceable that we swear an oath to uphold that as well. And if we violate the Judicial Code of Conduct, then we go front of judicial discipline, and then they can, you know, sanction us. They can ask that we be removed from office, suspend us without pay, whatever they think
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:17:20
is appropriate. It's a set of, and I can't tell you how it was enacted, but it's there and it's enforceable against us.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:17:27
We must abide by that code. So I guess my thought process, like, so I'm a realtor, right? And so our ethics
is through the Real Estate Commission, right, which is sanctioned through the legislature and the governor's office and things like that. And so I guess my thought is to what Representative Collins was saying, If you were going to put out more information, that shouldn't have to be a
law. That's something you guys could have already done, right? Well, I think you'd
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
3:17:54
go back to the code, which I guess would be the Supreme Court would be the body
which would then change that code or enact a different code if they wished. And then that applies to us. They are our superiors. I'm merely a trial judge, okay? So they help issue those, they have administrative orders that come down. Administrative Order 10 recently, several years ago, changed how I compute child support. It's not a written statute that this body enacted, but the Supreme Court says here is how an administrative order, here's how you determine child support.
So it's orders as appellate courts enacts and like the realtor board enacts as how, you know, can you represent both sides in the sale of a piece of property,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:18:38
you know. There's not a law that says you can't, but your board says that you cannot. We'll
Speaker 307
3:18:43
have a law here soon, hopefully. Thank you. Sorry, I must have hit a sore spot. All right. Seeing no further
questions by the committee, thank you, Judge McCormick, for being here today. Lots of interesting discussion, and I appreciate your
perspective. Thank you very much. Well, thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 317
3:19:02
It's been a learning experience, and I appreciate it very much. Thank
you. Thank you very much. Next, we have signed up to speak against the
Speaker 352
3:19:35
bill, Kristen Pollack. I'm Kristen Pollack, I'm president of the Arkansas Bar Association.
Speaker 354
3:19:39
I was born and raised in Arkansas, and I went to the U of A law school and undergrad, and I've been practicing in Northwest Arkansas since 1999. My partners and I own a law firm. It's Miller Butler. We have offices in Benton and Washington County. And the Arkansas Bar Association was founded in 1898. We don't represent all the lawyers. We're a voluntary bar association, so we represent approximately 4,500 members. And the Arkansas Bar Association has taken a position to oppose this measure.
Part of our mission includes to protect the rule of law. And that's, I think, what brings me here today on behalf of the association. Not because the intention of this bill isn't admirable. I mean, I think to Representative Ray's point, voters want more information. And so ensuring transparency is something I think that everyone can get behind. But going back, I think you have to look at the historical way that we got here, which was, yes, since 1874, there were partisan judicial elections.
But there was a really long-fought, slow, studied and careful process beginning in the 90s to try to bring us out of these partisan elections. And, you know, the landscape in Arkansas in the 90s was much different. I mean, I'm from Benton County, and I feel like we kind of gave birth to the Republican Party in Arkansas. And so maybe the changes happened more quickly in my area of the state. But back in 2000, when this finally was taken to the voters, the landscape was very different.
And yet the voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of nonpartisan elections. And it wasn't just an effort by some lawyers or some judges. It was a hard-fought effort, I think, from everyone who thought we can protect our judiciary better. We can recognize that judges are different, even though our system in Arkansas presently is to elect judges. That's what we've decided to do.
That's what you and the General Assembly has told us is how we're going to choose our judges. Even though it is by election, we've created a process to try to protect them because with party affiliation comes alignment, right? Like, you as lawmakers might be here today wearing a red tie or maybe a lapel pin that might tell me more about what you believe or what you're going to advocate for on behalf of your constituents.
Maybe because I'm wearing a blue suit or I have red glasses, you might make assumptions about me. But as Judge McCormick talked about, judges wear black robes. They ditch their street clothes, or at least we hope they keep them on underneath their robes. They come into the courtroom, and they put on these robes so that the people that are before them, that have brought their cases to them, at least in that moment, know that they're dealing with a neutral, with someone who is impartial, who doesn't look at them as red, blue, purple, whatever.
And there's really no way to divest a judicial candidate from partisan affiliation once they take the bench. Once you've had them take up that mantle and identify as a partisan, they're going to be a partisan. Now, what I've heard from this committee that I think is really important to me and I'm going to take away is that we as an association and as lawyers in our communities need to work harder to make sure that voters know more about the candidates that are
running. And I've been involved in judicial elections with friends of mine that I knew would be good judges, not because they were an R or a D or a Green Party or whatever. I'm from Benton County, so you know what they were, because if they made it to the bench, they were probably aligned with the party. But as I'm telling people why this person is a good judge, why this candidate is suitable for the bench, I'm talking about their character. I'm talking about the fact that this is
a good person. This is a person, you know this person from church. You know this person to be honest. You know this person to be fair, this person to be
Speaker 359
3:24:22
reasonable, to have the temperament that is suitable for making decisions for call-in winners and losers
Speaker 354
3:24:28
in a courtroom every day. And I take clients to court. I'm the kind of, I do divorces, I do, you know, things that bring me into trial courts every week, okay? And my clients are always asking me when I'm trying to prepare
them for court, well, is this judge going to be fair? Is this judge, does this judge like moms more? Does this judge like dads? Is this judge going to be reasonable and listen to me, or are they friends with the other side? I think my mom went to church with this judge. They're looking for that information about the judge, and so I hear you, Representative Ray, that perhaps they're craving that, but what they don't ever ask me in preparing is, what party are they aligned with?
Because in the courtroom, that's not what matters, especially at the trial court level. They just want to know, is this person going to listen to me and give me a fair shake? Do I start off even with my opposing party? And so, yes, we are protecting judges and treating them differently like we would treat y'all, because you come here to advocate for your constituency, for your beliefs, for the things that are important to you that made you run in the first place. for the most part run because they believe themselves to be a good character and the
ability to be impartial so that they can help folks make decisions. They can make these decisions based on the law that you wrote, that you wrote for the people and that you told them what the law is. And so it is, they're just a different, they're a different animal. And it's okay that we treat them differently because we've got these
Speaker 362
3:26:14
two branches of government that are beautiful and partisan and it works really well. Um,
Speaker 354
3:26:20
this, this law amendment 80 was an amendment to the
constitution that passed 25 years ago. And so what we're now wanting to do is, is amend our amendment, but it has worked well for 25 years and, um, the voters did overwhelmingly pass it. And I don't think it should be, it's not good for our state. I mean, we've got 102 amendments to our Constitution. Do we really want to come back every legislative session and keep amending our Constitution? We can probably do things better without amending the Constitution. And that's on
me, and that's on lawyers in your community. I mean, I'm sure that Representative Underwood, when you go back to your community and somebody asks you, well, will this person be a good judge, you're going to tell them yes or no, not based on how they voted or whether they voted in a primary, But based on their character, and like, are they a good lawyer? Do they work hard? Are they reasonable? Are they fair? Are they good? Do they have the moral character and fitness and temperament to put on that robe, which
will make them different from the rest of us? So, I appreciate your time. It's late, so I've got two or three pages, but I'm not going into them. So, if you have any questions, I will do my very best to answer them. Ms. Pollack, I do have some questions. Number one, I appreciate you being
here, and it's good to see you. Did I yell? Am I yelling at y'all? Not at all. No, you've done great. I've been sitting in
the back, so I kind of got. So one of the points that you've made is
that we should judge a judicial candidate based on their character,
whether they're a good person, their involvement in the community, people's familiarity with them, et cetera. But would you dispute the idea that judges all have political persuasions, political opinions that they bring with them to the bench? I don't dispute
Speaker 354
3:28:20
that. I think it would be very hard and almost make them maybe less qualified if they weren't so engaged in the community as to understand the issues of the day.
That's what makes our judicial candidates exceptional, is when they can take that knowledge and understand that that may change, that a position they have on a certain piece of law, it will never matter because the law is only what you all tell us
it is. Okay, and that's a fair point, and that's where I'm going, is that whether judges run as partisan or whether they run as nonpartisan, you're not going to end a person bringing their political opinions, their life experiences, their biases, to whatever extent they may exist.
You're not going to prevent a person from bringing that to the bench. The question and the quality that voters should be looking for is, if this person is going to be on the bench because fairness and impartiality is ultimately the goal, can they set those aside and make a decision regardless of what their political persuasions might be and make their decisions based on the facts and the law, which is what we ask of jurors all the time.
Do you think that that is a fair characterization of what
we should be doing and looking for in judicial
Speaker 354
3:29:53
elections? Well, I think if we are asking and expecting and indeed the judicial code of conduct and our ideals of what a good judge should be, we ask them to set those things aside from the moment that they declare for judge. if we're going to say, okay, run a campaign, a vigorous campaign in which you identify with
one party or the other, and you're going to speak with how, in what ways you identify with that party, then we're sabotaging the trust, the ability of the public to trust and have faith that these folks will really set aside those personal ideologies once they do take the bench. Why wouldn't we instead lift them up and make it possible for them to show the public right away that they, in fact, can set aside those personal ideologies through the course of a campaign?
Speaker 29
3:30:50
All right, fair enough. Representative Hawke. I
Speaker 369
3:30:52
think I was going to pass, but I'll go ahead and throw it
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:30:59
out there. Man, you're awesome that you came and you put out a great testimony. But I do have a question. Sure. So it almost sounds like we are electing judges based on a popularity contest of that they are a good person and they are a moral person. And it kind of sounds like what we did in high school when we were doing class president, right?
And while I agree with you, I want our judges to be moral and I want them to be ethical and everything like that. The average voter says, well, I want to get into the weeds a little bit. I want to know where my vote's going to go. What would you say to that voter that says, okay, it's great that they're ethical, but I want to know more. But the judges can't tell me more.
Speaker 354
3:31:47
What would you say to that? I would say I understand that seems counterintuitive. But, you know, we are electing, we have chosen in Arkansas to elect our judges.
And so, yes, this is a bit counterintuitive. And so what you're looking for in a candidate, Mr. Voter, is a person of integrity, of a person who is intelligent, who has experience. Those are measurable things, okay? It doesn't have to be that they're nice or they're friendly. It's not that kind of popularity contest. It's instead a demonstration that they have the fitness and the ability to follow the laws that are written.
And so the best way for a voter to really understand if this candidate might be that person, might be worthy of giving their vote to, is to go meet them, to talk to them, and then to speak to people who have practiced in front of them or maybe people who have used them as their lawyer. We have this beautiful social media that's for a whole other day, but there is a lot of information out there about lawyers, and all judges are lawyers. That's the law that's been
written, about lawyers and how they conduct themselves and their abilities. And you can do a lot of research about a person to learn. I mean, you can learn just about, you can learn where I live and where my kids go to school by looking me up on the internet. So if I were running, you would know things that at least I've held out publicly to be important, you know. So I think the information it's out there, but judges don't stand for anything. So you don't need to know how they identify politically because they're never going to take a stand for anything. That's your job.
You take the stands on behalf of
Speaker 362
3:33:33
your constituents and you run in campaign. Judges are
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:33:37
different. So it's funny. I've got a constituent
that just texted me that's watching this right now. And she says, judges are, once they're in, they don't get out, right? It's really hard to get a judge out of office the landscape changes over time what what does she say to something along those lines of you know the landscape in 20 years may change and that same judge that was elected that may not fit the views and like I said earlier we have judges that are protesting in
front of the governor's mansion that don't fit with some of the the views of modern day Arkansas what would you say to that?
Speaker 354
3:34:14
Well I mean the landscape has changed since I started practicing in 1999. So this was the law of the land. Amendment 80 was the law of the land when I started practicing. My dad practiced for the generation before me. Partisan judges were the law of the land in Benton County. And if you didn't put a certain letter in front of your name, you did not get elected. But I would say to your constituents' question, judicial terms are for six years.
And I could be, I'm going to defer to witnesses like Judge McCormick, because I think district court terms, maybe even less. And some of you may serve as district court judges. I don't know. But so we do have elections. You do have the ability to encourage candidates to run. We're not like the federal system where there is a judge that's appointed for life. These folks do run and they do retire. If the landscape, if the political landscape changes, the judges under our model
should be insulated from the political landscape. And I mean, since I've just been practicing, we now have same-sex marriage, which is a whole category of marriage that we didn't have when I first started. So things have changed and they do change. But our judges are steadfast and consistent and hopefully they uphold the oath that they took. And if we don't think they're doing
Speaker 375
3:35:29
a good job, then we don't vote for them again. Thank you. All right, I wanna follow
up on that again real quick and not to beat it at horse, but I think we kind of are at this point so.
Am I the dead horse sir? No, no, no. No, you're not.
No, you're not. But to Representative Hawke's point,
voters want to know, the point that's been made this entire committee meeting, voters want to know information about their judge, what their beliefs are, what their core beliefs are. If they're going to be sitting on their bench and they're going to make decisions that affect their lives, they want to know at their core, you know, what their core beliefs are, what kind of person are we going to have making decisions over our lives. And, I mean, it's kind of a farce, don't you think, to say that
the people can't know your political beliefs the way that we do this now? Because, I mean, it all comes out ultimately. I mean, what's your feeling on that? Because, you know, we've seen everything from the conservative candidate to this that and the
other thing I mean at some point it just it just seems like a big
Speaker 354
3:36:48
farce so yes sir thoughts so my thought is putting a letter whether
it be rd or i and at the end of a candidate's name on a ballot and having them run according to that letter, doesn't tell us anything about their integrity or their inclination to be fair, reasonable, impartial, patient, have a good temperament, reasoned, and learned in the law. And in fact, if a candidate put a certain letter by their name, that may mean something today,
And it may mean something completely different next year. And I'm sure that it's not a surprise to anybody in this room that you might identify with a particular letter, a particular party, but three counties away, that party looks completely different. And so there's not a consistency in what these ideals mean in our state. We're a small state, and we have a really vibrant, interesting political system and partisan system. but that is not really going to provide the information that the voters want what you what
the voters may want is they want to know how is the judge going to decide my issue or what does the judge think about custody or what does the judge think about abortion and those issues i mean what you're really asking for is for judges to go out and campaign on those issues and then they're just like everybody else they're just a partisan political candidate running for an office, and that's not their job
Speaker 366
3:38:25
to stand for anything. They're supposed to stand for justice and impartiality. Well, I will
say to your point, having them put a letter by their name
may be kind of counterintuitive to some degree, because I think what I heard you say was, then everyone will put that letter by their name who's going to run for judge so that they can get elected, regardless of what their real beliefs may be. And so it makes people who they would represent that maybe they have certain beliefs in order to get elected and so it kind of it helps them hide to some degree if you require people to put the actual letter by their name as opposed to
the way we do it now where you know voters you know one way or another try to find out information on the candidate but when you require if we require every candidate to put a letter by their name, it may actually give the voters less information because now everyone hides under the letter. Does this make sense? That sounds
Speaker 354
3:39:26
like a savvy way to put yourself in the best position to get elected. I don't think it's consistent with the code of judicial conduct. I hope it doesn't
happen, but I think it probably will.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:39:42
All right, fair enough. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. Would you
say, and I'm not asking which way, but would you say that the U.S. Supreme Court leans one direction
Speaker 380
3:40:01
over the other? I don't want to give you a lawyer answer. Then don't. So I think...
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:40:07
In the court of public opinion, would you say that the U.S. Supreme
Speaker 354
3:40:11
Court leans one way? Yes, sir. Based on the political appointments and the time those appointments were made.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:40:17
So, yes, sir. Do you believe that the Arkansas Supreme Court leans one
Speaker 354
3:40:24
way or the other? Based on a court of public opinion? As a whole, I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:40:29
think there's probably indication. Yes. So, without partisan judicial elections, we see an appointed Supreme Court
and we see an elected Supreme Court in our state. And there's already an understanding of where a lot of these individuals stand, sometimes after the fact, sometimes because of appointment, sometimes because they're endorsed by county parties or state parties. But there already is an aura of partisan nature on the court. So I think to say, well, we can't do this because then things will become partisan
is kind of tongue-in-cheek to a degree because it's already happening. The problem is it's not happening exclusively for the voters. They're not getting to decide based on that. A lot of times these things are discovered after the fact. appears through appointments. You said something earlier, and I wanted to see if I could get you to clarify a little bit. You said that judicial candidates were protected, and then you also said like the legislature, but I wasn't sure what you meant when you said protected, because you
followed it up by saying like you guys, and I wasn't sure what that meant because when we run for office. We are, you know, defining where we are with a party status. Some run as Republicans, some as Democrats, some as independents, libertarians, et cetera. So I wasn't sure what you meant when you said that. Well, you repeating that
Speaker 354
3:42:04
back to me, I don't know what that means either. And so I'm sorry if I cause confusion, because I certainly think that you, each of you
as candidates probably had to take a stand, identify a party, stump, argue, shake hands, and make your case to the voters. And so I do not think that judicial candidates certainly use the political affiliation tool as a part of that process. We do know where people come from. We do know that we have candidates or justices on the higher courts. We know what their history is. We know what their associations are.
So we make inferences. But that's what they are. They're inferences. And I do have an opinion. You asked me and I answered whether I think they lean more or not. But I don't know that. And I do believe that as a body, they've taken an oath and they do have indicated and reaffirmed even lately that that's not a partisan body and that they will follow the law and they will interpret the law and give guidance to the rest of the lawyers in Arkansas and to lawmakers about where they stand.
And if you don't like it, then the legislature certainly gets to come back and change the laws. So it's working. I don't believe that this system is broken. I do believe that I, on this end of the table, can do a better job of helping the constituency, helping the voters be informed, and letting them know what I believe makes a good judicial candidate what that person will be a good judge.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:43:41
Yeah, I appreciate that. Do you think you can recall and understand, because there's been
a lot, but when you said that you believe that
judicial candidates are protected, take out the part where you said,
like us, just does that resonate? Is there some belief that you have
Speaker 354
3:44:03
that judicial candidates are protected and what that might mean. I believe they're protected. They are in some way, they're insulated. Maybe that's a better word. Because of Amendment 80 and the fact that they run as nonpartisans, they are insulated from the animus, perhaps, that comes with designating yourself as a party candidate,
paying the party filing fee, running in the primary, stumping, making the argument that you're the better R or D than this guy sitting next to me. I'm the more conservative, the more liberal, the more whatever you should vote for me. They're insulated from that part of the conversation. Um, and it is unique, but I believe it's necessary. So I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:44:52
would say instead of arguing they're more R, D, left, right, center, they're just arguing
and forgive me for no good legalese
available, but that they're just more justice-y, you know, than, than the other candidate. I mean, because they are campaigning in, in some way, shape, or form for the positions that they're running for. That's because it's an election. Yes, sir. You referenced that, that they were insulated. And I know you and I both were listening to lots of compelling testimony during a previous constitutional amendment that was being presented this evening. And we heard a lot about how the justices aren't insulated. And you just referenced a minute ago that we could figure out
where different individuals, kids go to school and death threats and those kinds of things. So you mentioned animus. So I don't think it's partisanship that's protecting the judges if they're already having awful things. I think one of the judges earlier said every day somebody leaves angry. I don't think it has to do with partisanship and it has to do with the verdicts or the decisions that are made.
This does seem to be a very important issue to the voters. I think as we go around the room, we're hearing it. Individuals want to know where these people stand, where these candidates stand. And when you say or I say, hey, we feel like this person's the best one, maybe we say they're conservative or another individual say that they're more liberal or they're more experienced or whatever it is. This is one of those indicators. You said it doesn't indicate integrity, but to a voter it might. Partisan nature may indicate somebody's integrity because
of the stances or the beliefs that they hold you referenced benton county and you said that well you know if they're on the bench in benton county you know where they stand or what they are
Speaker 354
3:46:50
what what does that mean well i guess what i mean is prior to amendment prior to amendment 80 benton county was probably the only county in the state where there were our judges and so you knew that if you were going to run for judge in Benton County, you had to run as an R.
And that was different than everywhere else in
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:47:12
the state. So I want to go back to, and I'm going to jump out of the queue. I appreciate the latitude, Mr. Chair. But for 160-plus years, that system worked really, really well.
And you said that we don't need to come in and make constitutional amendments every session, and I appreciate that position. But on this particular issue, it's not been done for 25 years. There's been a significant sample size. And the voters and the legislators that they elect are seeing this as an issue.
And putting it in front of them to choose seems like a fair option. Do
Speaker 374
3:47:49
you disagree? I do disagree. I disagree because... the
Speaker 354
3:47:58
voters did decide and they decided 25 years ago but this is a constitutional amendment. I think that it is sort of not respective of our founding document
or at least the constitution of 1874 if we because of climate or to your point, sampling sizes, we think that the winds might have blown a different way. This is our constitution. So amending it is the biggest, most... I need a word. It's late in the day. But it is the most abrupt and permanent, I guess,
change that you could make to this document until somebody comes around again and wants to amend it again. This is, that's not the best way
Speaker 393
3:48:53
for us to function. So it was, sorry, it
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:48:57
was appropriate for the voters to decide 25 years ago, but today it wouldn't be. Well, there's
Speaker 354
3:49:03
a bigger context to Amendment 80. Amendment 80 was a comprehensive judicial article that changed the way that really the courts and our systems of justice were handled in Arkansas, because we used to have the
chancery system and the circuit court. So it was comprehensive. And I won't bore y'all with it, and maybe you know all about it, but it was a comprehensive, you know, reformation of our judiciary in Arkansas. And it is what has sort of, we now have full-time district judges. We have, you know, it's really
Speaker 362
3:49:36
just improved our judicial system to really, it's really a, it's a really
Speaker 354
3:49:43
great system that we have today.
And so it was done with a lot of thought and comprehensive consideration. And so this is like going back and like picking one piece of it and pulling that out because we may think public perception has changed. I think public perception is probably just as you guys have talked about is that the people need more information and we can do better with that. But the information they don't need is this party affiliation because, to your point, sir, you'd said that voters want to know
where these candidates stand. That is the wrong question. Judges don't stand for anything. We are not electing activists. We are not electing legislatures. We are electing, for the most part, trial judges who are going to hear your property line dispute or, you know, or your divorce, Your custody case is not about the ideology that partisan politics brings to the table. Thank you. I've got more questions,
but I'll jump out for others, Mr. Chair. All right.
I will say we've lost some committee members. I do think some are coming back, and we have been debating this bill a long time. We're not going to take a vote on it tonight. It certainly is one that's worthy of debate, and I appreciate the debate. I think it's been extensive.
But we need to, at some point, try to move along. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Yeah,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:51:12
and I'll just be short. I'm going to try to sum up what the discussion has been tonight. I mean, you said that judges aren't supposed to take a stand.
I think that's why voters are frustrated is because there have been judges who have been taking stands, and they shouldn't have been. And I know in my area that has infuriated a lot of people because you're right, they're supposed to be impartial. And we've heard that testimony again and again, that they're supposed to be impartial, supposed to be impartial. And in a perfect world, if we have judges who are impartial, that doesn't mean they're always going to come to the same conclusion. Representative Rake and I can both read the same piece of law and come to two entirely different conclusions.
There are some judges who think, who are strict constructionists, and there are others who believe the Constitution is a living document. you know, a little bit looser on the interpretation. And so I fully understand the dangers that you're talking about by getting into these partisanships. So my question is, how do we let voters know maybe the worldview of these candidates so that as I'm deciding who I want to be my judge,
is it going to be the person who's going to interpret one way or they're going to interpret the other way. The best system we have in place right now is the, you know, probably the partisanship. But how do we let voters know, you know, as we're both reading that same, you know, 14th Amendment, a lot of people have a lot of different ideas on how to interpret that. And that's the, you know, maybe the meat of the argument here is,
How do we let people know how that judge is—what is his bias when he decides how he's going to interpret that?
Speaker 380
3:53:13
Well, that's a tricky question, sir, and I appreciate it. I think, you know,
Speaker 354
3:53:19
at different levels, the issue involving, for example, the 14th Amendment, that would come into play at different levels in different ways. So, like, you know, district court, traffic court judges in a DUI, they're interpreting whether a search of a vehicle that brought, you know, had marijuana in it or whatever is lawful.
They make a decision. If the defendant believes the decision is wrong, then they take their case to the circuit court level. The circuit court judge hears the case. They try it anew. They decide if there's a 14th Amendment search and seizure issue. They rule a certain way. If the defendant believes, and in some cases the prosecutor believes that ruling was wrong, then they appeal it up to the next level. And the next level would probably be the Court of Appeals in Arkansas. And the Court of Appeals at that point doesn't care about hearing testimony from witnesses anymore.
They consider the facts that have already been presented to the trial court judge, and they compare it to the law, and they render a decision. And so, it's sort of difficult to answer your question one way for everyone because I think the idea about what a particular candidate's ideology or worldview, so to speak, how it impacts their particular position they're elected to, I think it changes between appellate courts and trial court levels.
But what I would say is the way that you measure that, the way that you provide that more information is you identify whether the candidate has, for example, ever been sanctioned. Have they been subject to discipline in Arkansas? Have they been disbarred? Have they been suspended? How many cases have they tried? We have this wonderful automated court system in Arkansas where you can look up any attorney and see how many cases they've had and you can see what their experience is. And if they primarily represented people or corporations, you can get all of that
information that's out there if you know where to look. And the AOC has done a good job of putting that information into the E-Flex system now. But you're getting these questions because voters are coming up to you and either complaining that they don't know about a candidate or asking you what you think about a judicial candidate. And maybe that's the best way to get information is to ask a trusted, somebody you trust. Because this is a position of trust, a position where their actions,
their activities, their political affiliations shouldn't matter. So maybe I just come up and say, well, Representative Meeks, I don't know much about this candidate. They won't tell me if they're a Republican or a Democrat. What do you think? What do you know about them? Who should I ask?
Speaker 362
3:56:09
It's grassroots, but it's not partisan. Representative Long, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:56:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering, do you think that most people have some political bias? You
Speaker 364
3:56:38
know, I think I used to think the answer was yes because
Speaker 354
3:56:43
I think I have political bias and so I thought everybody was like me. But I feel like the more people I encounter, the more people I discover that don't want to be involved in that sandbox.
They don't want to have political biases because they've been turned off by how ugly things are. So that's a
Speaker 375
3:57:05
new belief that I have that you've just asked me. It's the first time I've
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:57:11
probably been asked it in a few years. I tend to believe that most people have at least, you know, a little bit of a bias one way or the other. You know, looking at the national elections, it's, you know, pretty evenly split and everything. But having believed that, it's like, to me, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask people to reveal their bias so you can make a judgment call.
Because I personally would rather vote for somebody that believes like I do. In the judicial races right now, you really don't have a good way of knowing, do they believe as I do? We just have to elect them. And especially on the Supreme Court level and the upper echelon, it seems like that in those cases, if we did know how they were going, maybe what their bias is, we'd have a little bit of an idea of how they would rule in the future
and would that be something that we'd like to help us choose between the candidates because right now you're just basically just drawing a number out of the hat, I think. Thank you.
All right. Representative Beck, this will be the last question. We've got four additional constitutional amendments to hear, so we're going to have to move on. I appreciate the debate, but Representative Beck, you're
recognized. And I'll try to make this quick. But I want your
opinion on this. When you started, you said people want to be treated fairly.
Yeah, they want to know that they'll be treated fairly when they get into court. But couldn't people believe, or I think they do believe, that this party or this party might interpret the law strictly, you know, more strictly, and say, okay, I can be treated fair because this person's not going to make up the law. you hear that a lot, that they're just gonna look at the law and interpret the way the law is written. So by knowing their party, you would be able to, excuse me,
that person's opinion would be, the reason they're choosing the Republican Party is not because they're conservative or the Democrat Party because they think they're more liberal, but because they believe that they would actually go and that that party actually interprets the law more
Speaker 354
3:59:44
evenly than others. What's your opinion on that? Well, I think as I said earlier, you know, the parties rise and fall and change, and even within a party, there are breaks in ideology and certain things become more important or more issues become more visible at certain factions of a particular party.
And so I think what we have, and it is a beautiful theory, and maybe it is impractical, and maybe it is imperfect, but it is an ideal that the judiciary should remain above and independent of the rise and fall of the party politics system. And so I think that we as humans crave information about people we're going to vote for.
We're trying to constantly size up the opposition. It's probably a survival instinct, but we're trying to size up what kind of man or woman we're facing, especially when that person is sitting in judgment of our case. propping, lifting up the judicial system to try to keep it from being partisan in every way we can at every stage, it's worth it. It's worth to fight for and to keep trying to have this conversation
with our neighbors about why it is so. I know you want to know how that judge might rule, but here's the thing. The judge isn't going to rule until they hear all the facts that actually get presented, and only at the end of the case, after both sides have been able to present their evidence, will the judge consider the facts, apply them to the law, and make a ruling. We're never going to know how a judge is going
to rule based on how they voted in a primary. If what you say is true, that people want
to be fair, then a person would run, if they
of just wanting to get elected, they'd say, I'm independent. Because if what you're saying is that people are worried about the bias on either side, and they only wanna be treated fair, then why wouldn't a judge run as an independent, no party affiliation? - Well, I would-- - I mean, wouldn't they get, in your theory, wouldn't they get elected first? 'Cause people just wanna be treated fair. They don't wanna be treated one way or the other. and
Speaker 359
4:02:12
you're referring to the judicial candidate wanting to be treated fairly?
No, the people that were electing the judicial candidate, they would say, Independence is where I want to go because that person has no party affiliation. And therefore, they would not be biased by any
Speaker 352
4:02:30
party affiliation. No, no, I think your earlier point was the
Speaker 354
4:02:34
true and correct one, sir, that as humans, we're looking for people that we identify with. And so voters are going to probably choose the party that they themselves align with. So I don't dispute that point.
I'm saying that is not the best way for our system of justice to function. We have to keep that branch separate, different, from the partisan branches of the executive and the legislative. Thank you for coming down and speaking with us.
Thank you, sir. All right. Thank
you, Ms. Pollack. Seeing no further questions by the committee, we appreciate you being here and appreciate your remarks. We have had a spirited and passionate debate about this issue, which I have enjoyed. But we have four other constitutional amendments to consider.
So, Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to close for your resolution.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:03:25
Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. We use terms like insulated, above, independent. Those are all nice terms. I would love to see that. But unfortunately, that's not the way it works. I think your opening about politics was right on, Chairman Gassaway. The voters deserve the truth. They deserve transparency. They all elected you. They've elected plenty of other folks.
When they have good information, they will act on that information. And with that, I would appreciate
a good vote. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lindstrom. All right. Next, we have House Joint Resolution 1016, Representative Ray.
I'm sorry, House Joint Resolution 1018, we're going to begin with that one, Representative Ray. I believe there is a handout for the committee.
Once staff passes that out, Representative Ray, you'll be recognized to present your amendment. Thank
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:04:34
you, Mr. Chairman. Can I go ahead and introduce myself and have my guest introduce herself? Of course. All right. State Representative David Ray, District
Speaker 409
4:04:43
69. Becky Arps, Director of Research for Americans for Citizen Voting.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:04:50
And I'm going to do my best to be short. I know we've
been in here a long time. I'm reminded of my favorite beatitude, Pastor Rose. Blessed are the brief, for they will be invited
back. But I seriously do thank everybody for hanging in there. This is one of the most important responsibilities that the legislature has, is to select what constitutional amendments get referred out. So thank everybody for hanging in there. Are we good? Okay. All right. House Joint Resolution 1018 is known as a citizen's only voting amendment. Colleagues, this amendment would ensure that only United States citizens can vote in our state and local elections.
I start from the really simple premise that Arkansans should determine the future of Arkansas and Americans should determine the future of America. And yet there are four states plus the District of Columbia which allow non-citizens to vote in their state and local elections. Additionally, you'll see in the handout that you have there's 21 cities, some of the major American cities, like Oakland, San Francisco, and even our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., that allow non-citizens to vote in state and local elections. In most states, when they
establish their constitutions, they use language such as, every citizen of the United States who is 18 or older is eligible to vote. Arkansas's constitution uses the phrase any citizen instead of every citizen other states use the phrase every citizen but whether you say every citizen any citizen or all citizens none of those phrases are sufficient because they constitute a floor rather than a ceiling a floor says that any citizen can vote but leaves room as we have
discovered in other states for other people to be added to that list and so by moving to only citizen language we're setting a ceiling for eligibility that only citizens may vote nobody else that is exclusive unambiguous and absolute so very quickly i'm going to give you three reasons why we should refer out this constitutional amendment number one americans should determine the future of america i think as everyone in this room has constituents in their district
who are concerned about the crisis of illegal immigration and they want us to do something about it. And while our immigration crisis will only truly be solved by the federal government, states can and should take measures to help. Closing the door to non-citizen voting will send a strong message to our constituents that we're serious about addressing this issue. Some of you might wonder, do we really need to do this? I would argue that we absolutely do. Unfortunately, we live in a time and place where radical ideas can quickly gain steam.
For example, if I told you that 10 years ago, if I told you 10 years ago, there would be a movement called Defund the Police and that national politicians would take it seriously, many of you would have laughed 10 years ago when I told you that. But here we are. If I told you 10 years ago that half of our nation's politicians at the national level would acquiesce to biological men competing in women's sports, you would have thought I was crazy. But yet, here we find ourselves. Similarly, with the issue of non-citizen voting, we are in a position where we can nip this in the bud.
I don't want to wait 10 years and look back and say we could have addressed this and just cross our fingers that this position doesn't become mainstream. Secondly, there's a nationwide movement behind this issue, And we have a choice to either be part of it or to sit it out and be left behind. You can see in the handout that I've provided you, there's 20 states that dictate only citizen voting. And 15 of those have adopted this amendment. In the last election, there were eight states that adopted this amendment.
Our neighbors in Oklahoma and Missouri both passed it, along with Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Two years prior to that, Ohio and Louisiana adopted it. And in 2020, Alabama, Colorado, and Florida passed it. So there's wide recognition around the country that states need to do this. And lastly, I believe very strongly that if we refer this amendment out, the voters of our state will approve it. In all of the states that I just mentioned, every single citizen-only voting amendment passed with at least 63% support.
Some passed with as much as 86% support. And the average support was 73.5%. You can look on the last page of the handout that you got is a poll that was done a week ago here in Arkansas. And it shows that 70% of Arkansans support this measure. You know, to use a March Madness analogy, this would be a layup. This would be a slam dunk. And the voters of Arkansas would support
it. And with that, I'm going to ask, Becky, do you have anything else you want to add?
Ma'am, if you would state your name and any organization you're here representing and you'll be
Becky Arps
Unverified
4:10:09
recognized to present your testimony. My name is Becky Arps and I'm the
Speaker 414
4:10:14
Director of Research for Americans for Citizen Voting. You're recognized. I'll be super quick. As Representative Rice states, the Arkansas Constitution does not reserve the right to vote to only citizens. The state statute is focused on how to do registration. If a city or county in Arkansas wants to allow non-citizen voting, they'll maintain their own voter rolls.
Home Rule says cities or counties have a wide latitude, as long as it doesn't violate state constitution or statute. As stated, it doesn't. I'll happily go into greater detail on any of those things, but I know it's been a long day. The California Constitution says, like Arkansas's, any person may vote who is a citizen. San Francisco Council voted to allow non-citizen parents to vote in school board elections. It was challenged in court. court found that nothing in statute
Speaker 415
4:11:06
or Constitution prohibits expanding the
electorate. People will argue, when they argue for this, they say that parents should have the opportunity to weigh in on their children's education. My best friend's from Britain and she is not a citizen, yet every teacher, principal know who she is. She goes to school board meetings, she's even on a curriculum Council. She has a greater impact on her children's education than I do. And I can vote for the school board. People will say that they should have, that non-citizens pay taxes and they should have a right
to say how those taxes are spent. I've been here since yesterday. I paid taxes on car, gas, food, lodging. I have a really vested interest in how the roads and trash are handled in Arkansas while I'm here. And then I'm going to go home. If you want to
Speaker 414
4:12:02
vote, become a citizen. This bill is about clarifying that only U.S. citizens can vote in the Arkansas elections. By passing H.J.R. 1018, you're giving the citizens of Arkansas the opportunity to determine whether
they think non-citizens should be able to vote in the Arkansas elections. And
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:12:21
we'd be happy to take any questions. Just not for as long as the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:12:30
last presenter. Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, are you
guys saying that the Constitution doesn't currently require you to be a citizen to vote? Because it looks like it does? I mean, this language that's not being struck says a citizen of the United States, a resident,
Speaker 414
4:12:47
at least 18 and lawfully registered. So it doesn't prohibit a municipality from allowing
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:12:55
non-citizen voting. But that's in the section titled Qualifications of Electors. So don't you think that those would be read
Speaker 415
4:13:03
as the qualifications of electors? One would think so. And logically, I would agree, except for the fact that California's Constitution reads the exact same way. And when San Francisco voted to allow non-citizens to vote and it was challenged in court,
the court said the Constitution doesn't prohibit enfranchising additional people. It simply protects the right to vote of U.S. citizens. Okay. Well, I don't know. Thank you. It's for clarification, if you want to look it up, it's Lacey v. San Francisco City and County. All right. Any other questions by the committee?
Seeing no further questions by the committee, do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:14:01
Ray, you're recognized to close, and I should say, for your resolution. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would add is that just, I believe, last week or the week before, South Dakota referred out this amendment to their voters. And this week, the Kansas Senate will make a determination on this. They are very likely to refer that out to their voters as well. So, we just have the choice. We can be a part of this national movement to protect our elections at the state and local level to ensure citizens-only voting, or we can let that national movement bypass us and sit on the sidelines.
I hope each of you, when you rank these constitutional amendments, will give this one strong consideration and give it a big old five. Thank
you. All right. Thank you, Representative Ray.
I think you've got the next two also. So we'll move next to HJR
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:14:54
1016. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Joint Resolution 1016 is very simple. This would repeal the cure period in our initiative process.
I think most people know what a cure period is, but it is a period of time for initiative proponents to collect additional signatures if they fall short of the required number by the initial deadline. So in Arkansas, if 75% of your signatures are facially valid, you get an extra 30 days to circulate petitions. Now, why should we get rid of the cure period? Three simple reasons. Number one, the cure period is fundamentally unfair.
Think about it this way, Representative Hawke. When you were in college, you probably had to write a term paper. And when that paper was due by a certain date, and when the due date comes, you turn it in, whether it's finished or not, and you receive a grade for it. But in a system with a cure period, when the due date comes and you turn in that paper, if the teacher determines you did at least 75% of the paper, you get 30 extra days to finish your paper. That is ridiculous. You either got the signatures or you didn't.
You either finished the paper or you didn't. There's no do-overs. Reason number two, to show you how ridiculous this policy is, there are 50 states in America, 26 of them have initiative processes. Only two states out of those 26 have a cure period, Arkansas and Ohio. So Arkansas is an extreme outlier on this policy. And if you want to know even more about it, consider that in Ohio, their cure period is 10 days.
Ours is 30. So not only are we an extreme outlier, we're among the two states out of 26 that have this policy. Ours is three times longer than the other state. Lastly, and this is really important, the cure period creates perverse incentives that lead to the mess that we have with the initiative system. because, sorry, lost my place, if there were no cure period, canvassers and sponsor groups would
have much less incentive to obtain duplicate or invalid or even fake signatures, because the Secretary of State's office would identify them and eventually cull them from the total, okay? But because of the cure period, sponsor groups know that if it appears as if they have 75% of the number they're required to have, they will get a 30-day extension to get more signatures. Rarely in politics do people screw up and say the quiet part out loud, but I'm going to give you
an example of why this is so important. On August 27th, 2013, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette published an article by Neil Early. The headline was, Learn's Ballot Initiative Effort Saw Myriad Obstacles. The article covered the efforts of the CAPES group to repeal the LEARNS Act by referendum. I want you to listen carefully to what that article said. I found this shocking. The Arkansas Secretary of State had confirmed that a campaign to put Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders' education overhaul on the ballot had come up short.
Still, Steve Grappe, a leader of the campaign, wanted to make sure that nothing had been missed, so he enlisted the help of David Couch, a Little Rock attorney and direct democracy guru who authored and successfully pushed for constitutional amendments on medical marijuana and increasing the minimum wage. What Couch discovered was alarming. He estimated more than 1,000 signatures had been scratched out, but the signatures were not crossed out by the Secretary of State's office, but rather by CAC's own volunteers.
The campaign had been concerned about turning in signatures that weren't verified as being those of registered voters. Quote, it was a rookie mistake, Couch said, explaining that the campaign should have left it up to the Secretary of State to verify signatures that weren't obviously bogus. Let me pause there. Here you have a group that is trying to do the right thing. They're trying to ensure that the signatures that they turned in are verified as those of actual voters. And then you have the guy that the Arkansas Press Corps deems the direct democracy guru
saying that they're basically a bunch of suckers for turning in signatures that could very possibly be invalid. The article goes on to say, Capes had 56 days to collect signatures. If it had collected the required number, but some turned out to be invalid, it would have qualified for a 30-day cure period if the valid signatures were equal to 75% of the rejected number. There you have it. That's the reason he said it was a rookie mistake.
So I think we can all see from this article and from where we stand in relation to other states that this cure period presents a lot of problems. And quite frankly, you know, I think our initiative process would be improved quite a bit if it didn't exist. We would not have, in my opinion, nearly as many of the problems that we've heard testified about in this committee about, you know, unscrupulous behavior by canvassers and that sort of
thing if we didn't have the cure period, because I think it's a perverse incentive.
So with that, I'll be happy to answer any
questions. All right, any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, Representative Ray, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the resolution. Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:20:54
Ray, would you like to close for your resolution? I'm closed for the resolution. I
just appreciate everybody hanging in there. It's only going to be a few more minutes. Thank you. I see Representative Beatty down there. It's St.
Patrick's Day. He wants a Guinness. All right.
Let's move to House Joint Resolution 1016, Representative Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is House Joint Resolution 1017. Okay. So this
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:21:18
is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require future initiated acts and constitutional amendments to not just receive a majority of votes cast in the election, but it would also require the measure to prevail in a majority of the counties. So we have 75 counties in Arkansas.
That means that 38 would need to vote in the affirmative in order for a measure to pass. This would apply to both citizen initiative measures as well as legislatively referred to measures. In our current system, you can mathematically win a majority vote statewide by winning the vote in only eight counties. That's unlikely, but it's mathematically possible. This amendment would provide some measure of protection to the other 67 counties, and it would amplify their voice in the process.
Especially on controversial matters that have recently been put forward to the voters, things like marijuana and abortion and casinos. We should settle these matters in a way that gives the rural citizens of our state a voice. They deserve say in matters like this, and this amendment gives them one. This amendment would provide a critical guardrail for the process by which we pass statewide measures at the ballot, especially those that amend our Constitution.
And just like how the U.S. Senate, with its equal representation per state, protects the rights of smaller states from being overrun by the U.S. House, which is strictly based on population, this measure would give our rural counties in Arkansas a voice in the process so that they're not overrun by the largest 8 or 10 or 12 counties in the state. And with that, I will be happy to answer your questions.
All right. We do have questions. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you. I
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
4:23:12
am really not trying to keep us here long.
And I was trying to ask you this
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:23:18
question earlier, but maybe you can explain it to me. So on page 3, line 13, I'm starting. An amendment submitted under this section shall become a part of the Constitution if The majority of the electors voting at the next general election for senators and representatives approve the amendment. Can you help me understand that? Because to me that sounds like. Yeah, it also goes
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:23:44
on to say, and the amendment is also approved by a majority
of votes cast upon the amendment in a majority of the counties of the state.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
4:23:54
But why do we have to have this, first of all, U.S.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:23:59
senators, state senators, it doesn't make any reference to that, and not every single time in a general election do we have senators running in a general election, and sometimes representatives have no one running against them. I'm just really struggling, and maybe it's just late and I'm not understanding any
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
4:24:17
of it, but I have no idea why you have that section in there. -
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:24:23
I'll do my best. So just because someone doesn't have someone
running against them doesn't mean they're on the ballot. You can win an election without an opponent. That happens pretty frequently. I think what this is referring to is so that, what it is referring to is the next regularly scheduled general election in which senators and representatives are on the ballot. I agree, when you brought this to my attention and I read it, it seems a little bit awkwardly worded.
And I would be happy to go back and get some clarity from BLR as to why it was worded that way. And certainly if there was something that needed to be corrected, if this committee likes
the general framework of this amendment enough to put it in the top five, then I will certainly make sure that we fine tune that language before we take a vote on it. And I know
it's not too late in the process to file an amendment if one would be necessary.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:25:25
Okay. Because, I mean, I can just imagine the majority of the electors, especially if there's no
one running against that representative, I mean, how many electors do you need to pass that? Anyway, but you see that there's some issues, and I appreciate it, and I don't want to keep continuing to talk about it. My belly is full, or my belly is
Speaker 426
4:25:47
empty. No, you and I are both non-lawyers, and I think we
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:25:51
both agree it reads a little bit awkwardly, but I'm not certain that it's a mistake. All right, any other questions by the committee?
Seeing none, we do have one person signed up to
Jerry Cox
Unverified
4:26:14
speak for the bill, Jerry Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Jerry Cox, I'm Executive Director of Family Council, and I will be extremely brief. We do support Representative Ray's efforts to fix the ballot initiative process, and I want you to think back with me to last summer when we had just one catastrophe after another
with every one of these measures that were being circulated, and I applaud Representative ray for attempting to address this problem and i think this is a good step in the right direction as we all know the population of arkansas like most of america is shifting from rural areas to urban areas when article 5 section 1 of the arkansas constitution was instituted in 1910 most people lived in rural areas and the population was pretty evenly spread
We have a situation that he's already described where 10 counties, 9 or 10 counties, can overwhelm the entire rest of the state. When you allow counties to matter, you're not just allowing a county to matter, you're allowing a region to matter. If it's southeast, southwest, northwest, those regions have certain identities. And within those, you have a demographic, you have ethnicities, you have all kinds of things at play there.
And so, really, you are helping our state exercise what I would say is equal representation. And so, I applaud the committee for taking up this issue and the others that it's looking at. I think there are ways to correct some of the things that are wrong with the ballot initiative process, and I applaud Representative Ray for doing that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be glad to take questions, but I would rather not in the interest of time.
Speaker 429
4:28:19
All right. Seeing no questions, thank you. And thank you for no questions. Representative Ray, would
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:28:26
you like to close for your resolution? I would, and thank you, committee, again, for your patience and attention. You know, on an earlier proposed resolution, Chairman Gassaway gave us all a refresher on the civics lesson we got in high school about the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. He left one out. There's actually a fourth branch of government that our founders didn't design.
It's called the initiative process. And this process didn't come from George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. It came from Switzerland. It came from Europe. It was imported to the United States. California was the first state to adopt it. And what we've learned is if this system doesn't have proper guardrails, it can lead to a lot of abuse. And so that's what this measure does. It puts some very common sense guardrails on this process.
And I just appreciate the Family Council supporting this amendment, and I hope you
will all give it full and fair consideration as you rank these amendments. And thank you, everyone, for your patience.
I'm closed. All right. Thank you, Representative
Ray. The last constitutional amendment that we have to hear is House Joint Resolution 1019, Representative Stephen Meeks.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:29:53
And thankfully, colleagues, thank you, Mr. Chairman, this one should be the shortest. And it's getting late here, I'm losing my words. But anyways, I think it's kind of cool that last session I get to present the last constitutional amendment. And so we've had a lot of great constitutional amendments that, you know, got my one to get rid of personal property tax. We just heard a couple of great ones from Representative David Ray and Representative Lundstrom. This one I'm not really going to push real hard.
What this one is, is I had the opportunity, I was the chair of the licensing subcommittee for ALC this last session. One of the things we ran into was in the Arkansas Constitution when they passed Amendment 100, there were references to racing, dog racing in there. As you all are aware, there's no more dog racing in the state of Arkansas. And so, this is basically a constitutional amendment from that committee. So, this is a committee-led constitutional amendment.
And all it does is it is clean up to get rid of dog racing out of the Constitution. And so, pretty straightforward. So, I would just say that don't make this a five on your list. But if you've got your one and number two and you're looking for something easy, non-controversial for, you know, that came out of the legislature that should have no trouble passing, make this one your number three. And with that, I'll happily take
Speaker 241
4:31:22
any questions. Any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for
or against the bill. Representative Meeks, you want to close for your resolution? Representative Meeks is closed. I'd like for him to give the recitation that he gives at the end of session about us adjourning, but there's no need for that, I suppose so. With that, we have a full list of bills, regular bills to be heard on Wednesday. Thank you all for sticking around and hearing these this is very important business that this committee conducts.
Thank you all so much representative Beatty you're recognized. I just also
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
4:31:57
want to thank the staff because I know they have families and other things that
they absolutely need to take care of so thanks for hanging in with us and it's a job but thank
y'all. Yeah thank you for bringing that up we appreciate you all so much. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND THE LIST CONCERNING REQUIRED POSTING OF NOTICES, INFORMATION, AND MATERIAL AT A POLLING SITE ON ELECTION DAY.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.
HB1707 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS OF CERTAIN NONCITIZENS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13.
HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025.
HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT.
HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5.
HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES.
HB1774 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION.
SENATE BILLS
SB344 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE HEALTHY EMPLOYEE LIFESTYLE PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE PROGRAM.
SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB370 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB299 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A STAFF MEMBER TO WITNESS AN ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTING A RESIDENT OF A LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY WITH ABSENTEE VOTING.
SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE AND PICKUP TRUCK ACQUISITION ACT FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
SB227 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.
HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS.
HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES.
HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, INCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING.
HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 79, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING THE SPONSOR OF AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION.
HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME A LAW WHEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100.
HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN A LIBRARY; AND TO REQUIRE A LIBRARY TO HAVE A POLICY PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING.
HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND ON ELECTION DAY; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1037 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY REGISTER TO VOTE; AND AMENDING PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.
HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS.
HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING.
HB1041 A. Collins TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL ARKANSANS AND VOTER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION.
HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS.
HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY.
HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS A RESIDENT AND PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1415 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL TO REQUEST AN INQUIRY BY THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON.
HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.
HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 17, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 71
Laura Abbott
Unverified
Speaker 77
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Elaine Cole-Clesher
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Chris Walton
Unverified
Speaker 105
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 116
Speaker 121
Speaker 126
Speaker 125
Speaker 129
Susan Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Daphne Boyd
Unverified
Charlotte Meadlear
Unverified
Charlotte Mead
Unverified
Speaker 161
Speaker 163
Speaker 172
Speaker 174
Speaker 179
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 173
Speaker 122
Speaker 183
Speaker 213
Speaker 226
Speaker 235
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 280
Speaker 288
Speaker 292
Speaker 312
Speaker 300
Speaker 310
Speaker 307
Speaker 334
Speaker 337
Speaker 298
Speaker 317
Speaker 352
Speaker 354
Speaker 359
Speaker 362
Speaker 29
Speaker 369
Speaker 375
Speaker 366
Speaker 380
Speaker 374
Speaker 393
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 364
Speaker 409
Becky Arps
Unverified
Speaker 414
Speaker 415
Speaker 426
Jerry Cox
Unverified
Speaker 429
Speaker 241