State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (61)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB209
Act 273
· 9 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB209 K. Hammer TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER…”
|
TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB209 is now Act 273 |
|
SB210
Act 274
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB210 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF THE PETITION IN THE PRESENCE … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB210 is now Act 274 |
|
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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1064
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1064 D. Whitaker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO ALLOW PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF … | D. Whitaker | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1070
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF…”
|
TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025. | John Carr | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1352 is now Act 937 |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. 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: “…INQUIRY BY THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1549 R. Scott TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025.…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1549 is now Act 489 |
|
HB1560
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. Richardson HB1560 McGrew TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; AND TO REQUIRE PRICING INFORMATION FOR LIGHTING … | McGrew | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1574
Act 453
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORMATION FOR LIGHTING COMPONENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1574 is now Act 453 |
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1604 is now Act 943 |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1637
Act 457
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1637 Ray CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL I…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE … | Ray | Notification that HB1637 is now Act 457 |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.”
|
THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1004
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HJR1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KN…”
|
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. |
|
HJR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HJR1012 R. Scott AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEA…”
|
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: “…ENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Page 2 of 4 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. HJR1019 S. Meeks AN…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
HJR1019
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB272
Act 278
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB272 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO PROHIBIT PRE-FILLED FIELDS ON A VOTER REGISTRATION … | Crowell | Notification that SB272 is now Act 278 |
|
SB296
Act 282
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 6. SB296 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING LOCATION BY THE COUNTY … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB296 is now Act 282 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
And we were in the for and against phase, and I believe the next person signed up to speak against the bill is Dr. Gail Choate. Doctor Cho, thanks for being with us this afternoon. If you would identify yourself for the record stating the organization you're here representing and you're
Gail Choate
Unverified
0:28
recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. My name is Doctor Gail Choate, and I'm here today representing myself, um, and I would like to speak against Senate bill 209.
I had a little bit of extra time on my hands today, um, that I didn't expect in between, um, the session this morning and this afternoon and I had a chance to go back and reread an article that was published on January 29th of this year by the Federalist Society and the Federalist Society was taking a look at the executive orders that had been passed in fairly rapid succession during the early days of the president Trump's second administration.
And the article um went on to say that based on their analysis, there was a there was an overriding theme. And that was quote, to ensure that Americans are treated fairly by bureaucrats who wield great Unaccountable and often extraconstitutional power over their lives. It gave an example of President Trump on the first day of his 2nd term, revoking executive order 13992 that denied due
process to Americans facing agency investigations and in-house administrative prosecutions. Therefore, President Trump has vowed to use his executive orders to restore quote due process protections and transparency measures, end quote. When I read this, It's just rang true to so much of the testimony that we've heard today against Senate bill 209. Many people have testified, so I won't go on to repeat them
all, but I'm in concurrence that this bill denies due process on a number of different levels. Number one, it provides no formal opportunity for the canvasser to present evidence or a difference of opinion or difference of fact on charges that might be leveled against them. This is especially concerning to me because as I've been in a number of committee meetings on this bill and others that deal with direct democracy, we very consistently have been presented
with anecdotal evidence from people who had very strong emotional reactions to things that they supposedly or allegedly saw during the process of collecting signatures. It concerns me that the Secretary of State may use that. of information taken out of context to levy charges against canvassers in a way that would deny them the opportunity to a confront their, their accuser, and #2, present evidence to the
contrary that they are truly following the law. The second thing that concerns me about the lack of due process is the person who is actually the signer. Signing a petition, I'm not an attorney, but from the research that I have done, signing a petition is akin to exercising one's First Amendment right and their freedom of speech. To deny them that freedom of speech by throwing their signature out without providing remedy or the
opportunity for them to cure this process. I believe is a direct violation of their constitutional rights of the person who signed, of the person who is the canvasser, who presented the um petition for signature, and there is an overreliance um based upon the testimony given today by the Secretary of State's office. There's an overreliance on the BQC or the ballot, a question committee to provide remedy when in fact they're not necessarily the party to the accusation. So
for all of those reasons, as As well as the direction that President Trump seems to be taking us right now in the early days of his administration towards less bureaucracy, less oversight, and a um consolidation and acknowledgement of our individual rights and the right to due process. I, um, I humbly request that you all vote no on this bill. Thank you. All right, thank you, Doctor Cho. Are there any questions by
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
4:49
the committee, Representative Crawford, to recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor Chou, thank you for being here. Um, were you in the committee meetings, I don't know, a week or two ago, it all blends together, uh, where the secretary of state said that there were over 22 pages of signatures that were written in the same handwriting, uh, and that there were also 5000
signatures that were not valid. Were you in here during that time. I don't
Gail Choate
Unverified
5:26
have a recollection of hearing that testimony directly. Um, I've been in a number of meetings and if you're referring to the one on I think the 10th I was here, but I don't know, I
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
5:37
don't remember that. I'm sorry. OK. Um, I just wanted to bring that up because
with uh President Trump with all he's doing to Uh, help get us back on track as a nation, he would also protect
Uh, voting rights and everything that goes with that and when you have so much fraud that has come in to our state. Then it kind of looks like an overkill of this happening, but unless you were part of that, you would never know or understand, I should say, the reasons for all the legislation that is coming
Gail Choate
Unverified
6:20
out. Thank you, Representative Crawford. I, I
appreciate those comments and um I would just like to, if I may, uh, add to it that while I have not personally collected signatures, um, I have not fulfilled the role of canvasser. I did conduct academic level research um on the uh the process of signature collection, and I have asked for data for hard data to support any accusations of fraud, but thus far I've not received that. So, um, while there may be anecdotal comments being made about the number of signatures
or the number of pages. I, I have not seen that in, and I don't know, perhaps you have, but I have not been privy
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
7:05
to actually seeing that as fact. All right, thank you for that and we can probably check with the Secretary of State's office on that, um, the, I think the biggest issue here uh in people understanding what happened is there were no charges filed and there should have been. But there were not for.
Gail Choate
Unverified
7:25
Whatever reason. And Representative Crawford, I completely agree. If there's fraud being committed, I, I can only speak for myself. I can't speak for everyone who's spoken against this bill, but for myself, if there's fraud being committed, I want that ended and and I believe that um if there was in fact fraud and prosecution was not, was did not follow that, then shame on us for not exercising the law the way we could have and along with that then to add additional layers on.
top of it and to deny people's rights and to deny them due process because of a, of a mistake or a um shortcoming of the state. I think that's unconscionable.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
8:09
Alright. Well, I think um We will disagree, but um I trust that the Secretary of State went through great means to um Pull these signatures together to try to make something out of the chaos that was brought in
their office. Thank you. All right, are there any
other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, thank you, Doctor Cho,
Gail Choate
Unverified
8:38
for being here. Mr. Chair, may I just let you know that I had signed up for 210 to speak against it, but unfortunately because of the lateness of the day, I'm already 20 minutes late for an appointment, so I won't be able to stay, so thank
you though. I'm so sorry, but thank you and thank you for those remarks. Uh, next we have Julia Taylor.
Speak against the bill? Julia Taylor. Julia Taylor. Well,
there we go. I'm here. Um, I was
Speaker 24
9:11
Thinking ahead to 2:10, so excuse me. If you would
just identify yourself, any organization you're representing and then you're recognized to present your remarks. Uh, I'm Julia Taylor and I am
Speaker 22
9:26
representing myself um as a volunteer who collected signatures um for several ballot initiatives over the past several years. Um Regarding 208 is what we're on, is that correct right now. We're on 209. Um I will just
Speaker 24
9:51
say that um As a volunteer and a volunteer
coordinator. I did see mistakes and I saw a lot of mistakes, um. I did not see fraud. Um We did want to have an occasion where uh uh a volunteer did not understand the training that we had given, um, and she wrote names and addresses and then Had the people sign because that's how she thought she was
supposed to do. She then When she turned them in, We realized that that was what happened. Those were not.
Abigail Rector
Unverified
21:44
It is of the utmost importance that the integrity of the initiative process be strengthened, strengthened through this act, but my question is, what about the integrity of my rights as an Arkansan. I
Speaker 72
21:54
say if the dog ain't dirty, no need to give it a bath. So please say no to SB 209. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mrs. Rector.
Appreciate you being here. Well there are any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you, Ms.
Rector. Appreciate your remarks. Next, we have Kwami Abdul Bay. Yeah You're recognized. Good
Speaker 80
22:35
afternoon. I'm Kwame Abdul Bay. I'm the elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. Uh, first of all, uh, I just
wanna start by saying I'm asking for a no vote on this, so please do not vote for it. Uh, there are a couple of things that were said uh by the uh attorney for the Secretary of State. That uh don't square right, uh, he did mention that 79, 11, 111, uh, would. You know, pretty much solve the problems we're talking about and I'm reading 791 11.
It doesn't mention anything that he said it mentions, so I just want that to be on the record, um. SB 209 uh is. It's said to a man 79103. And 79103 if all of these anti-direct democracy bills go through. It will be amended by 12. 3
Speaker 80
23:55
all of these bills. Cumulatively uh work against the people,
Speaker 82
24:00
the people are the uh constitutional lawmakers here, according to the Constitution. Uh, and the general assembly, uh, stands in the, in substitution to the people because the people have to go to work and feed their children and uh you know, pay their mortgages
and everything. So we send you guys to Little Rock. Every 2 years to work for us, however, there's a lever in the Constitution that gives us the right to take that power back. And that power is direct democracy. So uh when we want to tamper with direct democracy, we need to make sure that we do so according to the Constitution.
To make sure that uh we do so in a manner that reserves the power that the people have these the. Legislature is subordinate to the people. The people are not subordinate to the legislature as uh people at this table would like us to believe. So when we look at uh SB 209, there's Several problems with not only the bill itself but with the discussion surrounding the bill.
There's discussion of election fraud and signature fraud. It does not exist in Arkansas. My office has done a thorough 25 year study foring all 75 uh. Election commissions and uh circuit clerks as well as for fouling the state, uh, elections, uh, commissioners
and the secretary of state's office. To get the data to find out if there is excuse me. I had to run to go pick up my son, so I'm still trying to catch my breath. Uh, uh, but we collected all of this data over a year to try to determine if there is election fraud in Arkansas. And in the last 25 years, there's only been 3 cases of election fraud in Arkansas and
two of those cases were by sitting elected officials. So when you look at it, there's really only been one Arkansan. That's been formally accused of election fraud in Arkansas in 25 years. Signature fraud out of all the data we've collected, there's only been one. prosecution in 25 years for signature fraud. So when you when you guys
package these anti-direct democracy bills together and try to sell them to us saying we're trying to do election integrity. You're lying to us. If you're gonna do this at least tell the truth. SB 209. Specifically, Let's start with the emergency clause. The emergency clause is a direct
violation of Arkansas case law. Self-safe surgery Arkansas versus Thurston. That those were 3 different cases before the Arkansas Supreme Court. And in all three of those cases, the Secretary of State's office tried to undo. Uh, a direct democracy and they lost in all three cases. And the uh the uh. The state Supreme Court
specifically stated in those 3 cases that. The legislature has no authority whatsoever to put an emergency clause on any bill that deals with direct democracy because when the when the legislature convenes the next election isn't for at least 18 months, so there is no justification for an emergency and I've testified to this at every single one of
these bills that has an emergency clause. You guys are willfully violating a state supreme Court case law when you vote for these bills with emergency clauses. But it's we, the people that have to spend our money to go to court to fight this stuff. So, number one, this is a bad bill because it has an emergency clause on direct democracy.
Number 2, When, when we look at this bill and we're talking about um the signatures, yes, I agree 100% their mistakes. I've been the uh campaign manager for 5 different uh ballot measure uh campaigns. And in all 5 of those ballot measure campaigns we do see mistakes because we have
Arkansans that are not taught direct democracy in school. So since they're not taught direct democracy in school, they have to learn it by trial and error and that's what this process is, is they're learning by trial and error, a representative Wright mentioned earlier about photographs of a store where uh the ballots were sit out and they were unattended to. Well, guess what? That was part of my campaign and I know exactly what store that is and I
can give you the name and the telephone number. Of the owner of that store so that we can get the truth of what exactly happened there. What happened is she did have them sitting out. at a table across from her register. And where she could see it, but another customer called her attention and so she went off and they were left there just for a moment and she, she called me and told me what happened
because she got accosted by the person that took the picture. And I told her take those off the table and if you're gonna have them in your store, put them right next to the register and whenever you leave the register, you need to take them with you. But that is a mistake because Arkansas does not teach direct democracy in K through 12. So we're learning by doing so the next time we do that, she knows exactly what to do
correctly but she shouldn't be threatened with some criminal liability or criminal sanctions because she made a mistake. The the system that we have now actually works if there are signatures, multiple duplicate signatures. Then the the multiple duplicate signatures are thrown out and you just keep one of them. I myself, uh, like it was
testified to earlier. I signed every single direct democracy petition that's put in front of my face because I believe in the power of the people to rule. I don't care what it is because it's, let's get it on the ballot, then let's have a discussion on the merits and that's what we're trying to do is simply get something on the ballot. Let us get it on the ballot, then let's argue and fight about whether or not it's good for Arkansas. So that's
really what I wanted to tell you guys from my experience and everything that uh this bill particularly in all of these bills were most. of them. There's a couple of them that I actually like, but most of them are a waste of all of our time and energy and they they serve in a a an unspoken agenda. Uh, with that, I asked the committee to vote against 209 and I'm open for questions. All right, thank you, Mr. Abdul
Bay. Is there any, or are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions. Thank you for those remarks. And that's the last person signed up to speak for or against the bill at this point, Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for your bill. Hm I
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
33:08
want to see if he was out there. There's
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
33:21
Thank you committee. Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to come back and and listen to this bill. I made some notes and I just wanted to address a few things that uh we heard earlier this
morning and also this afternoon, um, First of all, on the due process aspect, I think that that information is largely inaccurate. So first, um, while I was sitting over there, I was looking at the code and uh there is uh uh in the code currently, uh, a pro a due process uh section that talks about providing notice, opportunity to cure, and presenting evidence to
the Secretary of State's office. In addition to that, as we discussed earlier, you have the opportunity to uh take your appeal to the Supreme Court, and I think the code actually says they must take that up expeditiously. So, um, secondly, on the criminal standard, which I think was kind of addressed earlier this morning. This bill is not about the criminal code. It's about the product that occurs from these um actions, so you know, nobody's getting arrested or going to jail or anything like that. So that beyond a reasonable doubt standard really doesn't apply either. Um
And then, you know, I would just say on some of the other things that were said, we, you know, we have rules in place for a reason, and these rules should be followed. These canvassers have a responsibility to follow these rules, and I think they're actually given a handbook, um, so that way they know what the rules are. So when they don't follow the rules, I think it hurts Arkansans, and I think that's why we have those in place for a reason, so, um, and then finally I would just say, and I didn't mention this earlier, uh, the AG's office did review this bill and didn't have any issues with it. So, uh, that's all my notes that
I had for this bill, and I'm closed, uh, make
a motion to pass. All right, Representative Underwood is closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Collins, you're recognized. Yeah,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
35:09
just thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to discuss this because, you know, we talked about it this morning and then there was a big gap and I just want to kind of recap some of the things that we talked about that I think some of the witnesses brought to light in a very helpful way. So this is uh really unusual. I mean, the way
that we're doing this, setting up the Secretary of State as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to determine violation of laws of all sorts, some of which are criminal perjury, forgery, fraudulent practice. is, but instead of finding um the evidence to the standard in criminal code, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. It is to a preponderance of the evidence and again that's a term used in the court system when the evidence is there and available
and presented by both parties, both the uh plaintiff, this is usually a civil standard, the plaintiff and the defendant, and there's all kinds of opportunities for discovery of the evidence for rebuttal of the evidence for testimony, etc. Here there's none of that here it's just the Secretary of State, sole factfinder, sole determiner of the evidence that it gathers and whether the preponderance points to a violation of all these laws or not. There is an appeal, yes, I understand if someone wants to appeal to the
Supreme Court, they are not a fact finder. They're not a trial court, as Representative Gazaway mentioned, and even though there may be a special master, I don't think there's anything in here saying that a record has to be preserved. of what the Secretary of State looked at as far as its evidence, what it used to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence pointed toward a violation of Arkansas laws or not. Beyond that, beyond the, the quasi-judicial nature of this, which is a clear separation of powers issue in which I have a
big problem with. There's the issue that we saw in at least one of the other bills in this package, which is that you are throwing out a petitioner's signature based on something that they did not do. They may have done. Everything right under the law signed properly, signed legitimately, but all of the signatures gathered by the canvasser will not be counted if the Secretary of State makes this finding, so that takes away people's voices as one of the witnesses mentioned, uh, they have no opportunity to cure this
petitioner, the person signing the person whose voice we want to hear in this democratic process does not have an opportunity. They're not given due process to cure. to correct the record in this case. So, um, for those reasons, um, the many reasons, I think that have been described here, this is just uh a very problematic bill. It's going to lead to suppression of people's ability to participate in direct democracy. It's a violation of
our separation of powers and it it really creates a a a strange situation in my opinion and, and we should not go forward with it, and we should
vote now. Thank you. All right, is there anyone else who has any discussion on the motion. All right, seeing no discussion on the motion, we do have a motion to pass on Senate Bill 209. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The eyes have it. OK.
Speaker 97
38:32
See two hands, cholera. Yeah Representative Meeks. Representative Meeks. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry. Yes. Representative Barry, yes. Representative Mayberry Representative Mayberry, no. Representative Crawford, Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney,
Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representative in it. Representative in it? No. Representative McIlroy, Representative McElroy, no. Representative Ray Representative Ray, yes, Representative Beatty. Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Carr,
Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood. Representative Underwood, yes. Representative Long. Representative Long, yes. Representative Hawk. Representative Hark, yes. Representative Rose Representative Rose, yes. Representative Wooldridge, Representative Wooldridge, no. Representative Beck Representative Beck, yes.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
40:10
Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you
committee. All right, next we have Senate Bill 210, Representative Underwood, to see you again. Thank you.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
40:22
Uh, may I have Cinderhammer and I guess I'll have the Secretary of State's office up here as well, if that's OK. Yes. Chairman Gassway, would you like us all to?
Speaker 33
40:43
Introduce us since we're on a new bill, yes. Sorry, Nathan Lee, chief counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. Kim Hammer, State
Speaker 35
40:54
Senator District 16. Leslie Bellamy, director of elections, Arkansas Secretary of State. And
the issue is, of course, why we do that if someone tunes in to maybe just one particular bill and
they haven't had the opportunity to watch the entire proceeding. No one's identified themselves and they don't know who's speaking or who they're speaking for, so we have to do that on every bill, so.
Uh Anyway, Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, and I do
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
41:18
appreciate that. And for the record, I'm Ken Underwood, uh state representative, District 16. So this bill requires um that the canvassers not accept potential signer signatures until the signer has read the ballot title. Um, the ballot title, which is a summary of the proposed initiative, um, uh, must be read or they must, must be read prior to them signing, um, and this is enforced to a canvasser affidavit. Um,
I think we heard this, I don't know if it's been 2 or 3 weeks now. Previously, and there may be some people here that's going to testify again today that there have been numerous reports of people being tricked into what they were signing, so they were told, for example, um, some citizens were misled being told that an abortion amendment was actually about protecting pregnant women. And so, By requiring this, this is a helps with the designer knowing what the ballot initiative is about. Um, a couple of points I want to
make. I think that this kind of, this helps uh mitigate fraud because I think If somebody knows that these potential signer is going to sign the ballot title they're not gonna be able to tell them that it's something that it's not, or at least reduces that risk. I also think that it increases, increases transparency and provides informed citizens on what they're signing. And um I also believe that this will promote making ballot titles more easily digestible and comprehendible for uh the
potential signers and so and center hammer, I don't
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:51
know if you, if you have additional remarks, the only remark I would add to that is this is going to clear up the issue of individuals that um have been led to believe that a title is one thing. This will place the burden on those who are going to sign the petition to be responsible to know what they are. signing, uh, which should remove any of the uh excuses that they didn't know what they were signing, and so would appreciate the consideration of the committee for a due pass when it gets there. Thank you.
All right, Representative Underwood has explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Collins, you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:33
recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, As you all know, the Attorney general goes back and forth with these groups and uh they provide extensive feedback on ballot titles to uh make sure that they meet their muster, the ballot titles are not titles in the way
that we think of titles often as a short summaries of a couple of words. I'm looking at the um freedom of Information Act, ballot title that was approved by the Attorney General's office, and it's 462 words and so to read. 462 words when asking someone for a signature will take a while, wouldn't you agree? Well, I think
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
44:16
it could if they continue to, if, if canvassers continue to create
amendments that do a ton of things and then
they brought these huge ballot titles that nobody understands. What they should do is they should draft a ballot title that voters can understand. I can tell you this, uh, you know, last November. When I was in the voting booth, there was somebody sitting right next to me and they had pages and pages that they were flipping through, uh, and they were frustrated and they were trying to understand what these ballot initiatives did, and that's a common complaint that I hear, um, from my constituents is that they think that these are way too complicated and so I think If
They're going to be that complicated, uh, this will help make those more easily digestible, isn't it true
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:05
though that the Attorney general is supposed to make sure that the ballot title is understandable and that is part of what their review is, and the Attorney General, Attorney General approved that as well as several others that are long and in many cases required the level of specificity that would lead to a longer ballot title. Uh
Speaker 40
45:28
I don't want to speak too much for the Attorney General's office, but if, if If, if you look at the statute that guides their um review process for ballot titles. It's um they don't have a lot to work off of in terms of um Making a decision on what ballot title gets to to go through or not. Um, so it is meant to be a summary and the ballot titles have increased as the years have gone on. And I'm not sure that that is uh unintentional.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
46:00
One way or another, the reality is that ballot titles are long, whether or not they're doing a lot of things or whether in some cases there just needs to be a greater amount of explanation and detail for the ballot title to be approved by the Attorney General, regardless, I think it's pretty undeniable that it's gonna take a long time to read this either out loud or, you know, by a petitioner or potential petitioner sitting there reading it. Do you think
that this will result in fewer people sticking around.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
46:30
for 5 minutes or so to sign. Well, I think it depends on the issue, so it's been a couple of weeks when I first, before I presented these bills, but I just for kind of an exercise, I went through some of the ballot titles and read through them, uh, and I read several of them. Now, transparently, most of them I got a few lines in and realized pretty quickly what it was about and I would have thought, yeah, I'm not interested in this. I probably would have walked away, um, you know, if I was interested in it probably took me a minute or two to get through them. So I'm not saying there isn't longer ones, but on average that was my experience.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
47:02
OK, thank you. Representative Barry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a question. I'm sitting through hours and hours of this and I, I I keep wondering the answer what the answer is. But And I understand that it's all
depends on the issue also. But how much Or what is the average? Good signature. Uh, That's been paid that is paid to the canvassers. Is that a fair question? I mean, it's a, I don't know. I don't know who to call on to answer that, but I'd like to have, I'd like to have a Um, average of what a canvasser's paid
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:07
for a good signature Representative Barry, may I repeat your question back to you, make sure I understand it. May I repeat, may I repeat the question back to you to make sure we understand what you're asking. Yes sir. Your question is, how much are the canvassers being paid to collect signatures and I, if I may interject, is part of the question trying to determine are they paid by the signature or they just paid by the
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
48:32
page or by the hour. Well, I don't know. OK, that, that's basically my
question and I understand that there's different. Uh, issues that are different, you know, that are more important to some and as others and so and you may, they all may get paid hourly, I don't know.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:52
I think Leslie may be able to contribute to that if you're
Speaker 36
48:56
OK with that. OK, they're not allowed to pay by signature anymore. At one time they were, they, um, I know that other certain groups pay different, uh, certain groups,
you know, pay by the hour, I think. Um, I'm not sure what they pay per hour. We don't ever get that. That would be more probably an ethics question if they're spending so much money, I think it's $500 threshold they have to start reporting and I've, I've not looked at any of that, but also I know that there are, you know, a lot of canvassers that don't make anything. Uh, they're doing it for, for just for, you know, their volunteer grassroots, but they are not allowed anymore to
incentivize paying by signature. Well,
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
49:45
and if I may, thanks for trying to answer that, but I, I mean, how do the and I understand that not all of them. Get
paid. They do it because they're interested in the issue. But the one, I guess the ones
that do get paid, how the, how, what's an average uh If I'm a canvasser, what do I, I'm gonna want to know about how much I'm going to get. Either per hour or
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:23
does anybody know that? I think I don't know that there is other than what Leslie said, and she correct me if I'm wrong, I, I don't know that there is a set agreed upon price, you know, uh, last year, if you may remember when we had some meetings. It was, you know, presented that
motel lodging was paid for that gas cards were given, um, a whole lot of tangible things were given away and they even advertised for out of state petitioners to come in, they'd pay, I think it was. Up to $2800. I, I think maybe free market drives the, the price of which they get paid, um, and maybe Leslie could correct me or support me on that
Speaker 36
51:06
and honestly represents a very, I think depending on the sponsor
and how much money, you know, the sponsor has behind their issue. I would say that casinos, uh, probably paid relatively a lot better than, you know, I think the abortion amendment was relatively mostly volunteers, so I think you, this is part of the reason I think some of these bills are important is that big money factor from the paid canvassers is beginning to affect the Arkansas Constitution. It's almost being bought in some ways. So I think that's where,
uh, I can't tell you what they make because I, I've never seen a canvasser check, but I know that there's a lot of money behind some of these issues. Mr.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
51:52
Chairman, the a lady in the back raised her hand I didn't, don't know if she's got any more input I'd like to hear it if she does. The lady in the blue. All right, well, we're here
to answer committee questions. So if there's somebody here that has
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
52:14
some information that would be helpful. OK, it's kind of open ended so
I'm, I'm good. OK, so what I understand, and just for the record is that. What you would have said has been stated by Leslie. Is that correct? OK, so Canvassers may not be paid by signature. All right, and Representative
Barry, was that helpful to you at all? You got more.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
52:48
I don't think there is an answer to my question. I mean, not
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:55
one way or another, so I'm Representative Senator Hammer. Represent Barry, let me, let me take it and run it this way, and I, and I, I can't read your mind, but it's part of what you're wondering or trying to arrive at is that if they're required to read the um if they if they're required to read the, the uh initiative as this bill is requiring, is that going to
cut into the productivity of how many signatures they can get and at what time they can get them, and would that affect what they get paid if they're
a paid canvasser. Well, not really. Not really. That's why I don't read minds. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Yes, sir. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
53:39
Chair. I don't read minds and I'm having a hard time making sense of my own right now, so I apologize if you mention this in the presentation. I'm a million
different places at once, but can you just explain to me the reasoning behind having it read out loud versus um you know, using some other way of ensuring that the person
is is reading it or knows what it is that they're saying and not just
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:05
taking the word of the canvasser. Uh, a couple of things. One,
I think we just passed off the Senate floor, um, a bill that I voted for that Senator Clark Tucker ran requiring that these initiatives be posted up on the
Secretary of State website. I agree with that. And the reason I agree with that is because probably this last session or this last initiative process more than any before. I never run into so many people that were confused about what they were voting on, whether it was the casino initiative or the the abortion issue or whatever the case may be, and, and so I think the more we can make things transparent about what people are voting for, we get a better process, we get a better end result. I mean, to go out
and just gather up signatures without people knowing what they're signing for. Part of what this is intended to do is to make sure people are aware and the value of reading it and having the person read it, it removes the argument that people are signing something that later they say, I didn't know what I signed. Now the session's not over, but one thing I think we may need to address unless we can speak to this is the amount of calls that they got into their office saying I want my name off that signature because I didn't understand what I
signed. Well, some of that's voter responsibility or signer responsibility, but yet it would also protect the reputation of the petition gatherer because now it puts the responsibility. I'm the one who is signing to have read it out loud so that that canvasser can know for certainty that that person has read and they should understand 2, the representative's point, um, I think that those that are running initiatives need to be
conscientious about the length, the Attorney General, as I understand it, doesn't write it, but he's got to approve what is presented to him, and if that's 5 pages long, I think that burden falls on those that are the initiative process to figure out how to do it in a smaller form, so it's not as lengthy to be read. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
56:14
you. I'm just looking at this to thinking about um just the logistics of how it will play out and, and I've noticed this language in the presence of, and
I understand we only have so many words to choose from, and so we have to land on something, but can you walk me through a little bit from an enforcement perspective, what in the presence of will mean, um, I imagine that complaints will come in to the Secretary of State's office, um, you know, we witnessed this signing at the farmer's market and um you know, there was a, I'm a imagining, I don't know, somebody, somebody reading a ballot title at a table while there's a group gathered around, um, is it gonna be up to the Secretary of State's office to
decide like, oh, that person signed it, but they weren't really paying attention the whole time. I mean, what does in the presence of mean
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:03
and how will that be enforced is my question. take a run at it and the others can add in, uh, certainly the there there will be that uh There will be just like any other law that we pass, things that are going to have to be investigated. That would be done through the process. Um, somebody even brought up, you know, on the Senate end, maybe it was on this end I've lost
track, uh, well, that means that people are gonna be staying there recording if they don't see me, you know, reading it, uh, then they're gonna turn that recording into a Secretary of State. I mean, you guys have evidenced some of that this morning or this afternoon because while your boat was being taken a while ago, somebody was probably Facebooking. like that. There may be some of that going on, uh, you know, when, when all this transpires. I don't know, but the, the best solution to that is for those that are going to sign to read it out loud and they can remove
that, that possibility of any of that happening, and I'll yield to the other folks down
Speaker 159
58:06
here to add on or take away. Yeah, represented the only thing I'd add is is just requiring a good faith, um. Effort by the canvasser to uh give the opportunity for have ensure that the
Speaker 40
58:18
assigner, um, read the ballot title or for some reason they were unable to to be able to read it aloud to them in the presence of just um
In an area where it would be reasonable for that to be
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
58:34
able to transpire. And I, and I would add this quickly. Part of this is designed to be a shield for those that are gathering the signature in the event somebody comes back and says, I didn't know what I was signing or they didn't uh let me read it in front of them. This will protect those that are gathering the signature as much as it does those that are signing and it's like any other thing we do down here, any other law we pass, uh, you can.
For example you pass a speed, speed limit law, but until you get caught doing it, everybody gets away with it, but it's when that one person gets caught that that
becomes the example for everybody else. Representative Clowney, do you have any more? OK.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
59:19
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding the first part
of this, from what I'm hearing from you, I think you're missing a word.
And I think you're missing the word out loud. Because if, if I, if I'm going to sign a petition, I can read something without saying it out loud. And that's not in there, and I think that's what you're intending for that person to read it out loud. Is that correct? S No
Speaker 159
59:54
representative, they, the person who is interested or willing to sign the um petition,
Speaker 40
1:00:02
they just have, they have to read the ballot title prior to signing if they're unable to read it for some reason, then it has to be offered to read aloud to them I guess I'm just trying to figure
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:00:12
out how do you know that someone read it then. I mean, You know, you can put something in front of me, yeah, yeah, I read it. without reading it out loud, so I guess I'm just thinking you, you, the enforcement part of it is just kind of missing there. Right? It's, it's just requiring a good faith effort. If
Speaker 40
1:00:33
somebody's reading it and they're, they're or they're looking at the ballot title, but they're actually thinking about what they're gonna have for dinner that night, that that wouldn't be on the canvasser to know that, um, the intent of the bill is that um people will take the time to read it and in so doing, um, better. And what it is exactly that they're signing. Yeah, Representative, I think
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:00:57
he, he addressed um what I was gonna say, I think it's really, you know, if somebody indicates to you that they've read it, I
don't think that that's on the canvasser to, you know, test them on that or anything. I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:11
think that would meet the requirement. And to your point, I think it's, it's kind of twofold one, having read it is one aspect of it, reading it aloud because uh say somebody says they can't read, well then this provides the opportunity for it to be read to them. And I, and I, I think maybe intended or unattended, you're driving to the point of what this legislation is intended to do. It's to protect the canvasser and it's also to make those that are signing have
a ownership and responsibility in acknowledging that they have read it. If they, if they read it. Silently they say, hey, I read it, you know, and really they didn't and that's going to be on them, but what it allowed for is, is for the canvasser who's gathering signatures to have a degree of protection uh in the event it's ever called into question, they didn't understand what they were signing. I
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:02:02
just think it makes it very unclear
without saying, you know, specifically that the person had to read it out loud and and then you continue to say having the ballot title of the petition read aloud to him or her in the presence of the canvasser, so is the canvasser allowed to read it out loud to that person, I guess is is the other part of it. If someone says, well, I can't read, you know, is there the ability for the canvasser to be The one to actually say it out loud. Yeah, I think that's correct
because there's a, it's or, uh, let me find it here, but it says in the presence of the canvasser, it doesn't actually say that the canvasser, it doesn't give the canvasser the ability to read it out loud, the way I, I mean, I'm just literally reading what's here and to me that doesn't seem like the canvasser is allowed to be the one to read it out loud. Uh Don't, I don't take it
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:02:59
that way. I understand what you're saying. I think I understand what you're saying. I don't take it that way. I think if the canvasser's reading it to
them, I think it's being done in their, in their
presence. So I, I don't know if I'm, maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly. I don't know if
somebody else understands it differently than me, I'm happy
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:03:22
to tag somebody in. I don't know. I, I, I maybe I'm not making myself clear, but I, I just think that there probably could be better wording to, to make it clear to actually accomplish what you're trying to do and, and I will also say that that, um, when, when we vote on
bills, we actually, some of us may not listen to it, but we do have the clerk read the title of the bill before we vote on it, you know, and that's said out loud by by the clerk and again, some of us probably aren't paying any attention to it, but it is said out loud. So, um, I'm not totally opposed to the idea. I just think that the wording could be clearer, um, so that we don't have, um, when there is a contentious situation that it's been really clear what
was meant by that, um, that could hold up better and, and, in court, um, even, you know, to say, OK, no, this person didn't read it out loud, um, because I mean, I could say. Yeah, I just, I, I read that quickly. I mean, I, but it's, it's for, what did you say the title was Representative Collins, 400 and something words 400 and something words, you know, if, if, if it's put in my hands, I could say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, they're speed readers and they say after
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:42
5 seconds they read it. Did they really read it? Again, I think if they said that they read it, I don't think that there's, I think that would meet the requirement. I, when I read the language, and I'm not trying to be argumentative because, you know, and I'm happy to talk to you further, maybe you can, um, maybe you'll point it out to me, but I read it, it does seem clear to me, uh, and I also know that the AG's office reviewed it and they were, they're good with it as well, so, um,
I don't know if that really addressed satisfies your concerns, but. All right.
I have a question based on Representative Mayberry's question, I thought I understood this, but I guess maybe I just hadn't paid close enough attention. So when I read the exact language after reading the ballot title of the petition. In the presence of the canvasser and so what I understand you saying is. The person who proposes to sign the petition, we'll read it to themselves. That's one way that they can do this. They just read it to themselves, correct. And of course we have no way to know whether or not they understand it, whether they comprehend it, whether they spent enough time
to actually read it. They're just going to sign something or there's gonna be some verification. That claims that the person. Read the ballot title. Is that fair? That's fair, yes. All right. And then the next part is, or having the ballot title of the petition read aloud to him or her in the presence of the canvasser. And the way I understand that. We understand, understood Representative Mayberry's question was, It makes it sound as if the
canvasser is not the person who's to be reading it because why would you say in the presence of the canvasser, if the canvasser is the person reading it, of course, that's in the presence of the canvasser. It sounds like to me or having the ballot title of the petition read aloud to him or her. Is that like by a third party? But and I understand you guys interpret that to mean the canvasser themselves can read it aloud, but it kind of sounds like it means by someone else and then I I understand you also interpreted that you could read it aloud to yourself in the
presence of the canvasser, but uh the wording is a little bit uh wording seems to me to be a bit unclear but uh I just, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you, Chairman. I think the, the wording
Speaker 40
1:06:59
is, is more inclusive, so it could be, you know, that. The canvas or, um, read it aloud to the few people who are unable to read it for themselves, um, but if there are 2 or 3 people there, you know, at the table with the, with the with the sign-in sheet, um, you know, my
colleague could read it for you, and then I could witness it, um, it's just or as you said, the person potentially signing could read for themselves. So, um, it's just that someone reads it aloud, uh, in the presence of a canvasser. Yeah, it's your, your argument is that could be
the canvasser, that could be the person who's proposing to sign the petition that could be some third party who's standing next to the person who proposes to sign the petition, reading it aloud to him or her as long as read aloud
by someone, that's all it takes to satisfy that
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:07:51
requirement. And I wanna thank you for clarifying that representative Gasaway. So I appreciate you helping, helping me with that one. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:08:01
you, Mr. Chair. I guess the old political kind of school of thought if you can't convince confuse, I'm confused, uh, but I, I wanted to kind of go back with the question uh that Leslie had or a comment that Leslie had made a while ago and ask a question about the Constitution
being bought and paid for. So it seems like a lot of these initiatives are targeted towards paid canvassers or big money initiatives or things like that. Why not just limit this entire slate of bills towards canvassers who received compensation instead of just every day Arkansans
Speaker 40
1:08:38
are grassroots petitioners. With Bills, laws that affect security of the petition process, it, it would be underinclusive to only um make the law according to
Speaker 42
1:08:50
paid canvassers, um, because it deals with security, it it it applies to everybody as a canvasser, whether paid or unpaid. Follow up. So you're saying it would
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:08:59
be against the law to just make this apply to paid
Speaker 40
1:09:06
canvassers. I don't know that it would be against the law, but it would be, it would be underinclusive, um. But it's, it might be against the law because it, it would be less rationally related to the government's legitimate interest
in securing um uh the petition process.
Speaker 133
1:09:25
OK. And Representative Wooldridge to, uh, just kind of follow up on what Nathan
Speaker 36
1:09:31
said. We haven't just seen problems with pain canvassers. I do agree and, and having to sit through and review those things that pay canvassers are where most of a lot or a lot of the problems are, but there, there have been issues with um certain groups that had volunteer canvassers as well,
you know, and people saying that they've been misled on what they're signing, um. And then You know, we, we know we have really good canvassers and really good sponsors, and one bad actor sometimes to protect the integrity of the whole process for every voter in Arkansas, I think requires some of this legislation. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I guess this is for either Representative Underwood
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:10:26
or Senator Hammer, you know, I was a pro. I, I remember being approached at a gas station one time by a
person gathering signatures for a term limits measure and they came up to me and they, they literally said, Would you be willing to sign my petition to hold politicians accountable. And I remember thinking, Well, certainly that's not what
the measure says, so. I looked at the petition and I saw quickly that it was for term limits, and I just thought to myself, you know, Term limits is a really popular concept. I can't imagine why he needs to distort what this issue is about in order to get people to sign. And last election I was approached or I, I received phone calls, um, for many people claiming some variation of what I'm about to describe.
They were approached by someone from the abortion amendment, um. Effort and they were said and they were told, will you please sign my petition to restore health care freedom. Will you please sign my petition to protect women's health, something of that nature. Um, I got a call from one individual in Northwest Arkansas who told me that um He was duped into signing the
petition, um, he was actually told that it was for limited government, which is just a very nebulous term. Um, is this bill? Designed to prevent people canvassers from Um, or unscrupulous petition gatherers from basically tricking or misleading or deceiving people into signing something. Yeah, yeah, that absolutely, that's correct, and I think
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:12:21
um we heard some of that testimony a couple of weeks ago,
and I don't know if anybody, if people have stuck around, you might hear it today too, but I do believe that the Secretary of State's office was contacted about people who were tricked into assigning something or mis misled in what they were signing, and they, once they found out later what they were signing, called and wanted their name removed from from the petition. to Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Senator
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:12:58
Hammer said something earlier that kind of caught my attention, which was about petitioner responsibility and I guess my question comes back to that and, and why isn't all of this petition of responsibility. I think about what Representative Ray just said about how he was presented with, you know, these petitions, and they were presented to him in a way that he didn't think met muster, presumably he didn't sign him because he has enough sense not to and I I think a lot of uh really all
petitioners or people of Arkansas should be trusted to either sign or not sign based on whatever criteria, you know, they deem to be relevant or not representative but uh Mr. Abdul Bay earlier said he signs everything because he wants everything to be on the ballot. People may have different standards. So my question to you guys would be why is it that We don't trust the people of Arkansas to make these decisions based on whatever criteria is relevant to them, whether it's a short description or reading the
thing in full or just they want to sign everything and declined to read it. There wouldn't
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:14:12
be allowed to decline to read it under this. The bill's intended to do is to provide a level of accountability and yes, we are for the most part. A trusting society. However, As has been spoken.
Sometimes people's trust are taking advantage of and this is going to help preserve and also to purify the process whereby it will remove any doubt and it would place a a full responsibility on all parties that when that signature goes on that sheet, the, the responsible thing that has been done is to have read the
Uh, title to read what they are signing and that will help, I think, to protect the process and also to protect each one of those signatures.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:11
So track with me if you would through an analogy, um, we don't require voters to read biographies of candidates who are on the ballot before they vote on them. We don't require legislators to read bills before voting on them or signing on to co-sponsor them. I mean, I'll be
honest with you, that happens all the time, as you know, people will have a sheet and ask you to sign something on water or whatever, and you may not have read that. Um, But each legislator has a different process, and they may not sign if they don't think that it meets their personal muster and a voter may want to get a lot of information before they vote for a candidate, or they may just vote on what the name looks like. That's their kind there's their call. This is
the people's choice. Why is it different here in exercising their democratic right as a petition signer that we don't trust them to make a decision for themselves. I don't think that I just want
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:16:13
to, I guess, address the part about not trusting them. I don't think this is about not trusting the signer. I think it's about ensuring that
they're not being misled or things are not being mis misrepresented to them, and we have as we've stated, there's evidence of that, uh, individuals signed on to, I believe it was the abortion, was that correct, the abortion
amendment, who did not support that amendment, and then they asked for their name to be removed. I don't think that the analogy with what we're doing here is the same because it's. a different process that we're following. So if you co-sponsor Bill, we're going through a committee processes on both ends, and so I don't think that, I think the procedure on vetting those type of things are are completely different. We're talking about, you know, important things that's going to amend our foundational document, uh, in this state, and so we want people to be informed and
know what they're signing before it gets
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:07
to that point to get on the ballot. Well, I would say voting on candidates and
voting on bills are both important as well, but just to to clarify here. And tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not saying they're not. So, but just to clarify, if a canvasser came up and said to if this were to pass and said to a citizen of Arkansas, I have a petition here, uh, that would enshrine FOIA. Uh, would you
like to sign it and uh here you can read this, and the person says, I don't want to read that. I'm good to sign. They would not be able to sign under this law, would they?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:17:43
I would think if they don't want to read it, I think it would violate this. I think that'd be correct. But then they, but they would still have the opportunity to, to read it, but it would
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:50
not be a valid signature if they said I don't want to read this, and then signed it. Uh, I think that, I think
that might be correct, yeah. OK. Thanks. Am I wrong on that? I don't think so.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:18:05
Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Underwood, um, in reference to an analogy that we just heard, um. An elected official like a state representative is elected to a two-year term. If they deceive the voters and they're not who they portray themselves to be in the next election, they can simply be voted out of office by the people who they campaigned to. When you agree that amending the Constitution is a different issue entirely.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:18:35
Correct, Representatives. That's kind of what I was alluding to. It's a different process. It's not that they're not important, it's just they're not the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:44
same. You can't equate them. May I add to that, um, It does rise to a higher level, I think. Of needing to make sure the process is as As protected as possible because the reality is, and one thing I think this bill is going to help do. The reality is there are people out there. That have misled people. Into signing something.
That they think It's OK to sign only later to come back and ask for their name to be taken off for, for every one of those signatures, I think you can almost make the case that it, that it removes the value of another signature. So the question is how do we level the playing field or what good faith effort do we put forth in order to make sure that all those signatures and whether people obey the law or not. It's just like me driving down the interstate. It says 70,
sometimes I do, to be honest, sometimes I don't. And And, and the reality is it's on each individual to, to be able to know that we have instilled the best possible process to make sure that both the one asking for the signature and the one giving the signature have done the responsible thing, and that is read what they're signing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Cloudy,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Underwood,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:20:07
I just want to follow up on Representative Rosa's point there. So to continue this analogy of the candidate, um. It is true that if somebody changes their mind on a candidate, if there are, you know, Faulty promises made or, you know, false promises made during a campaign and a person can 2 years later vote that candidate out of office. That's true, but I guess I would make, I would actually say that the signature process is lower stakes and even um the Representative Rosa's point makes the analogy even clearer
because if somebody has signed a petition and they changed their mind and decide that they actually do not support any given initiative. They still haven't voted on that. initiative, right? They go to the ballot box and they have the opportunity then to vote no once it's made clear. Um, so can you explain to me how we are holding signers of petitions to a higher standard, um, I mean, shouldn't we hold all voters for all offices to the same standard if if this is what we're concerned about them being deceived on the front end. They have plenty of
time to course correct is what I'm saying in this particular process as opposed
to a candidate running for office. May I ask
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:18
you, is that directed to him or me or either one. So On the Senate end, the question was asked, and my initial response was what I thought was a good response, but then when it came back to me, I thought, well, maybe my response wasn't so good. And the question that was asked is what, what is more valuable the vote at the voter's
box or the signature that allows something to get placed out to be considered and I said, well, they each carry equal weight and then it was pointed out to me and I think it was a fair observation, but The standards for which and the environment for which that signature is gathered out in the field that is as important if not more important than what's voted on at the box and so when you have multiple requests to have signatures removed or you have people out misrepresenting
in the field what something is all about. You are manipulating the system and taking advantage of the trust of the people that what is being presented to them is truthful and. And when you have evidence by testimony that people are lying to you and that people want their name removed, but they can't. What you've done is you participated in a process that is not as pure as it can be to allow things to get to the vote in the hopes that you can get it passed, but we have, as we've heard testimony in here, one of
the lower turnouts and it could be the game that I want to get it signed so I can get it to the vote because I know that I a better chance of getting it passed. So I'm gonna do everything I can down here in order to get that petition on to be voted because I know my chances are better at that place. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, you had made the statement a while ago and
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:23:10
I, I appreciate it. I think that your intentions are pure with this bill and
you're really trying to solve a problem, but you had made the statement that people are being told one thing and they're signing these petitions when the ballot title or initiative actually says or does something different. What I still can't reconcile, I guess in my mind is, is how does this solve that problem because if you just tell them that, for instance, I think your example is the abortion amendment. If you tell them one thing and it does something different and you just hand it to them, you're not required to read it out loud. You can't force them to read it, so you hand it to
them. How does this solve that problem? I mean, somebody that's a bad actor would still be a bad actor even with this requirement in place,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:53
right? Bad actors are gonna be bad actors no matter what we do down here, as it was testified in the JPR meeting. We make the laws. It's my job to see what I can do to get around those laws. That was testified in JPR. That's the environment. That's the tone that we're fighting. against what people do with it, they have to live with conscientiously. What we have to do is that if we catch those bad
actors, put all the tools in the toolbox we can to convict them and to make an example of them so that our election integrity process of petition gathering is as pure as possible. I can say this when we sit here and we see something wrong as given testimony throughout all of these committee hearings, and if we don't do anything to correct. And we accept status quo as best. All we've done is perpetuate into the future what is not best practices. So I
think to sit back and just say leave it alone is to condone the activity of those that are out
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:24:52
there doing it wrong. I agree with that, Senator, and follow up, um, so what is the teeth or what is the, what's in this bill that allows us to then hold those bad actors accountable. What changes?
Speaker 40
1:25:05
Well, as the actions of the canvas or if they were to be intentionally um not following this rule, then like, like the other rules applying to canvassers, they might open themselves up to criminal liability.
OK, I'll get back in the queue. Representative Hawk, we had you down earlier for a question. I don't know that time may have passed. OK. All right. Well, Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:25:33
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I, you know, or Senator Hammer, I, I hear what you're saying
about wanting to make sure people have the opportunity to know what they're signing and not be misled. I think that the uh the criticism and the the issues a lot of people, including myself,
have with this bill are, you know, one, it's gonna really slow down the process by forcing someone to read something that they don't want to read and also in my opinion, it doesn't trust people to, you know, exercise their rights in the way they want to exercise it. It seems to me like a solution that would address your legitimate issue and also not create some of the issues that I see on the, on the other hand would be to require the ballot title to be offered to the petitioner to read as opposed to requiring
them to read the entire thing. Um, why would offering it to them to read not suffice to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish as far as them
knowing what's there at their discretion. You can correct me if I'm wrong or Leslie can weigh
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:26:39
in. One of the problems that occurred, and I don't only think it's been mentioned yet is that the petition is supposed to be on the back of each one of those sheets. One thing we found is that, and we've had testimony
before is that those sheets are not attached to the back of it. One of the things this will do is address that issue by making this a requirement um so that that, that petition has to be read by by the signer. Great.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:27:05
What about that plus offer but not require them. Read it. Why would that not accomplish? What you're trying to accomplish. Would you repeat that, please? Sure. One of
the things, what you said in response is that this will also require the petition or the yeah, the title
to be attached, which is great. I think that's current law. Am I right? OK, fine. Well, then my question, my original question stands, I guess, which is offering them the opportunity to read it before getting the signature could be this bill, and it would accomplish, it seems to me what you're saying is important, which is that people are not going to be misled. In deciding something that is not what the canvasser represents us to be. But You wouldn't have to require
them to read that entire thing to accomplish that goal. Why could you not just require it to be offered to the potential petitioner
to read as opposed to requiring them to read the whole thing in the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:08
presence of the canvasser. I think requiring takes the guesswork out of it and whereas offering it is a, is an option and requiring it brings it to the higher level of standard that we expect in the petition gathering process. process. Expect of the petitioner, right?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:28:26
This is a burden we're putting on the petitioner. I beg your pardon. We're putting this burden on the petitioner though this higher standard is being
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:36
experienced by the person being forced to read a document. I think it's equal accountability to the one who's asking for the signature to present it and to say this, you need to read this, and then it becomes also equal responsibility to the one who is signing it, that they have read it as outlined in the requirement. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:28:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm listening to all of the debate, right interesting debate, but it occurred to me, what if a third party Witnessing a canvasser reading to a partition petitioner later came up and said the canvasser didn't read the. title correct. But what would happen in that case? If the, if the, are
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:29:23
you asking if the if the petitioner didn't
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:29:27
read the title correctly. I'm sorry the canvasser is reading, reading this. All right. And there's another party there that's For whatever reason, the petitioners is not can't read or is not going to read the the the person signing the petition is not going to be able to read the document and the cameras are is I don't have my reading glasses with me or something else, something like that. But then there's a third party that says The, the petition wasn't read correctly to that individual.
The, excuse me, wasn't read correctly to that individual, what would
Speaker 159
1:30:08
happen in that case? Uh, Representative, thank you. That would be the
Speaker 40
1:30:13
same as as any of the, you know, accusations of violations of not following the rules related to petition gathering and if it was just a simple, he said, she said, then there wouldn't be a reason to, um, you know, throw out that person's signature basically,
if, if all it was was somebody came out later on and said, oh, they, they didn't do that right. It would be the same fact issue that We would look into for any of the um various rule violations with
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:30:45
the petition process. So if it was good follow up. So, so if it was recorded and said OK, they missed a
few words or, you know, I, I could, I, I could see a canvasser, honestly, I've read this thing 300 times a day, right? And I'm zipping through
it pretty quick. I miss missed some things and someone recorded that. Would that then invalid invalolate all
Speaker 40
1:31:10
those. Signatures. Not, not all of them, it would, um, It would just apply to that one and then 2, the law already affords for like scrivener or clerical error. So if you missed an and or maybe an article in a paragraph that you were supposed to be reading, um, in, in that example, then um that signature
wouldn't be thrown out kind of on that technicality similarly to how, you know, that's afforded for other parts
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:31:40
of the uh petition rules. 4 more now
then I'll be quiet. Well, well then, what would happen then? he would say. We've passed some some things out here that would, that said that the camiser followed the correct procedure, and in that case, they hadn't followed the, you know, it might have been intentional, but they didn't read the thing in full. So would that throw out that whole page or every thing that they did
because possibly they're not reading, I know I'm just kind of throwing a little bit of a monkey wrench into this, but it is possible that something like that could happen. You
Speaker 214
1:32:14
see, you see what I'm saying it happened once and the person signed that piece of paper that said I did it
Speaker 159
1:32:20
every time the example you gave wouldn't rise to the level of the signatures being thrown out. It wouldn't be, correct me if
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:32:27
I'm wrong. It wouldn't rush that would not rise to the
level of being fraudulent, and in the other bill that we passed out here
earlier, it is specifically targeted toward fraudulent activities, um, skipping, skipping a word or being tired at the end of the day. I think it'd be hard to make a case that that could be thrown out because that is not intent toward fraudulent activity, and that would have to be determined through the investigation process, but I'd like to ask my attorney, am I correct in that? Uh yes, sir. Thank you. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:33:08
Sorry, but I do want to thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to clarify that because I, I don't know that that's right, so you know, when I look at Senate Bill 209, it said just as uh Representative Beck said that Secretary of State shall not count signatures collected, uh, by a canvasser if they find that uh the canvasser has violated Arkansas laws regarding canvassing. Not just fraudulent practices but canvassing. So, um, and there's no materiality standard.
It doesn't say that there's I don't really see and maybe you can direct me where if they admit a word that's uh doesn't rise to the level, uh, but
it seems to me like that technicality is something that they can throw all of
Speaker 40
1:33:56
those signatures out on. I agree with you, Representative, that if. They're not following some rules related to the petition law or came in that case, canvassing as a canvasser, um, then the signatures could be thrown out,
um, the example I understood from the vice chair, um, with some maybe leaving out like a word or something like that, but if somebody was, was, um, misrepresenting um the ballot tower they're reading or not checking ID, you know, even, even twice, and it could be proven now we're. You know, we're going back to 209 now, and you could actually prove that by a preponderance of the evidence standard, then in that scenario, the signatures could be thrown out. Well, maybe this is a
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:34:42
clarification or maybe it's a further question, but in this bill that we're looking at, it says the ballot title has to be read aloud. It doesn't allow for errors de minimis errors as far as I can read. So I do
think a word being omitted in the event of being tired and it doesn't require intent or does it
require intent? And I, I'm sorry in reading so if there's an error in reading the title, does it allow, does this bill say that only if it's
intentionally omitted. Is there a violation or is it just if it's inaccurately read to
Speaker 40
1:35:18
the, the criminal liability that's that's at the back of the bill that just. Applies to the canvas or just like it does elsewhere in the code. I and I don't know what that uh mens rea mental culpability requirement would be, but there would be some. Some there, of course, um. But As to the the If it was a small um omission
similar to how it is elsewhere regarding petitions, then that would not kill somebody's signature. I, I, I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:35:51
respectfully, I think it would kill all the signatures gathered by the canvasser when you and let me just, and I maybe have asked this in a choppy way, so let me just put it out to you and you can tell me if this is right or wrong in in your assessment. If a canvasser, if all these bills were to pass in this package, if a canvasser Fails to read the title accurately, misses a word
because they're tired at the end of the long of a long day on accident all of their signatures would be thrown out because they would have violated a canvassing law, not a criminal law, but a law relating to canvassing. I
Speaker 159
1:36:28
think if they missed one word in the example you gave them know that they would
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:36:32
not all be thrown out. Where is that de minimis or materiality. Where is that in any of these bills or in the current code.
Speaker 40
1:36:39
I'd have to look at and and find the code where it talks about how if there are um kind of
minor clerical errors um that signatures won't be thrown out, but similarly to the due process of our last bill that we talked about, it is afforded elsewhere in the law. It's, it's not necessarily put into this bill, but it does exist in the current state of the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:37:00
law. Well, please, please you direct me to that. OK,
Speaker 42
1:37:03
I'll, I'll, I'll get offline and and look. find it and I can come back with you.
OK. tax. So as a follow up, and again, I'm not. trying to take a position necessarily one way or
the other, but just for information purposes. I think Representative Collins
is right that the way the bill reads, uh, any violation of. Arkansas law related to canvassing. Uh, is all that the Secretary of State has to find by a preponderance of the evidence in order to invalidate, and this is one of the questions, all the signatures that that uh canvasser collected and so one of the questions is like it does that, does that mean all the signatures that that canvasser collected over the course of, say, a 6 month period of time
working on the project, and many of which may have been validly collected, collected legally because of one instance where. There was some violation of the law and again. It talks about violation of canvassing law. Can you, uh,
Speaker 159
1:38:09
Yes, Chairman, this is going back to 209, I think, but in if someone, if
Speaker 40
1:38:14
we, if the Secretary of State's office could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that canvassing law was
violated, then yes, it would invalidate all the signatures that were um collected by that canvasser, um, some, some that might be otherwise valid signatures, but that's similar to um what is done in current law, um, if you don't, uh, Media technicality on say notarizing your petition part or you, it was proven that you didn't attach the um petition to your, your signature sheets and, and various other rules and regulations, um, you know, if you don't follow the rules,
essentially, you open yourself up to those signatures being thrown out, but yes, I would agree that if you don't follow canvassing laws, and even if it was just one overt instance that was proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then that would invalidate that canvasser's signatures. Did
you guys ever think about, uh, just
invalidating the signatures that were maybe on the particular petition part where in and around when the the uh violation was alleged to have occurred as
Speaker 40
1:39:24
opposed to every signature that that canvasser collected. In, in, in our experience of if you can prove acts of, of uh misrepresentation, um. It's usually true that that wasn't the only time that misrepresentation occurred, and this gives us an ability to, um, cold canvassers accountable to good conduct. OK,
and then to Representative Collins' question when we talked about violation of of the
canvassing law, I think to your point, however, there are in the canvassing law statutes that exist, there are mental states, there are uh defined courses of conduct that constitute canvassing law that you guys will consider, uh, in the course of making your determination as to whether or not a violation of canvassing law has occurred such that it would should invalidate all the signatures, is that right? I mean, I, I don't have all those statutes in front of me, but you will consider the standards that are set forth in those other
statutes, the more specific statutes about canvassing law when
you're making that decision. That's correct. OK. All
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:40:36
right, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, no,
y'all can take a minute. I mean, I don't, OK, thank you, um. So Shifting gears just a, just a little bit. I Respect The problem that I think
Representative Ray pointed out about people regretting signing petitions and and our signatures are really, really important, um, thinking about the breadth of this legislation and some problems that I'm or concerns at least that I'm hearing around the table. Did y'all, and maybe this is better for the Secretary of State's office. Did you ever consider a bill that would allow people who had signed petitions to request that their names be removed. I mean, it seems like something like that may solve some of the issue. issues that we're seeing here and maybe that's a terrible idea. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming, but. It's probably not the words you want to hear, but that bill's
coming. Hm OK OK, follow up, um, then, then why do we still need this one? I mean, if we have that, doesn't that address the problem that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:41:38
this bill tries to solve as well. I think the difference is that we are trying to catch it as it happens to reduce that need for
that, but that is something that does need to be addressed before we get out of here because of the volume of calls where people have called the Secretary of State's office and have said, I want my name
removed and Leslie can correct me if I'm wrong, but right now, There's not a process. Is there a process in place for that,
Speaker 133
1:42:06
or my understanding is there isn't. Representative Clowney, right
Speaker 36
1:42:09
now there is no process in place for us to remove them, uh, most of the time when we get those phone calls, we don't even have the petitions at that point and it's really not our petition, it's still the sponsor's petition, so we, we direct them to the sponsors, uh, where a lot of times we'll get a phone call back and they'll tell them, well, they said they'll try to
find it to remove it. Uh, we've thought about the legislation for that as well, uh, Senator Hammer and I. talked about it. My staff and I've talked about it. We just want to be really careful how we do that because if an opponent to that process were to just call in. We can't just take someone's word that it's that person calling, they might, you know, opposition might try to take it off without it being valid, so we're we're trying to find a way to make sure that it's that person. Sure, it just
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:43:01
sounds like that might be a solution that's a little bit um cleaner and more narrowly tailored and and maybe that would be bad for reasons I'm not thinking of right now, but I
Speaker 36
1:43:10
just was curious if it had been considered so thank you. I think we're on the same page representative Clowney, but uh we just haven't maybe got that fine tune to figure out how to keep fraud out of that on the other side. Representative Rose, you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:43:26
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to go back just briefly, I don't want to take up
too much time, but to the comments, uh, when we were discussing, uh, incidental. Um, incorrect statements accidentally reading something, leaving a word or two out. I just wanted to, uh, to the sponsors or to the Secretary of State's office. I was looking at both uh petition fraud and uh falsification, the penalties for that under uh elections and initiatives and code, let's see, it's Arkansas code 7-9-103.
It goes on to use the words knowingly, says, you know, a person, uh, acting as a canvasser, they do this, yada yada yada. It is. 103 section C, Part 6. Knowingly misrepresents the purpose and effect of the the petition or the measure affected for the purpose, causing a person to sign a petition, so specifically current code states knowingly and then over in the uh where where you discussed petition fraud, that is Arkansas code
5-55-601. Section B Part 2 CNF as well as Part 3, but it, it again says And you're committing petition fraud if you solicit or obtain a signature to a petition knowing that the person signing is not qualified to sign the petition. Or knowingly misrepresents the purpose and effect of the petition or the measure affected for the purpose of causing a person to sign a petition. So this represents similarly and there may be some other
prerequisites, but the code section that you're referencing that specifically states there are, there are, you know, When somebody in with intent knowingly commits this. There are consequences. There's no provision here for when somebody accidentally does something or maybe omits something. There's no penalties listed. It's just kind of the section we were talking about. Yes, Representative. Yeah, that's all thank you.
All right, seeing no further questions by the committee. We do have several individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill. First we have Jesse Shelton to speak for the bill. Jesse Shelton Jesse Shelton. Not here Next we have Vicky Parker. speak for the bill, Vicky
Parker, Vicky Parker, not here. Next we have Jimmy Cabin to speak against the bill. Mr. Kevin If you would identify yourself, stating the organization you're representing and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Jimmy Kevin,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:46:28
Arkansas first news but I'm here representing myself as a citizen, Mr. Chairman, if you indulge me real quick, I wanna tell you just how much I appreciate your approach as a chairman on all of these bills
and the way you've handled the committee. I know you've taken a lot of flack from it, but you have not taken flak from the citizens. The citizens have very much appreciated how you've run these committee meetings and to allow their voices be heard. So thank you for that. As far as 2:10. Let me read from it. After reading the ballot title of the petition in the presence of the canvasser. Or her or, or having the ballot
title of the petition read aloud to him or her. In the presence of the camper. A person who is registered, a registered voter in the state may May Sign his or own his or her own name. Well, thank you very much, Your Majesties for, for allowing me to do that. What gives, I just wanna ask a question.
What gives anybody in the legislature the right to tell me what I can sign and what I can't. I, I, so when I get through speaking, if anybody will pipe up and give me that answer, I'd love to hear it. I want to know what gives any of you the right to tell me what I can sign and what I can't. What we're applying here And I wanna do this, is this what I said in the Senate committee. So if you're gonna apply the standard to me that before I can sign a petition.
That I have to read it and you have to verify that I read it. Then what's next? Are we gonna Are we going to apply the same standard in the voting booth so next you're gonna come back with before you allow me, allow me to vote on an amendment or an act that's in the ballot, on the ballot box. Are you gonna come back with me that now I have to read it before the poll watcher and the poll watcher has to verify that I read that amendment or that
act before you allow me to go exercise my right as a citizen to vote. And let's go ahead and take it another step further because this is the direction we're heading. So now let's go back and say, OK. OK, now it's not good enough, Jimmy. We're, we're not, it's not good enough that we verified that you read it. Now, Jimmy, we don't, we, you gotta prove to me, you understand it. So now we're gonna make, give you a test. Now I'm gonna make you take a test before you can sign that petition to prove to me that you
understand what you, what you're signing. And we're gonna apply that to the voting booth. And then we're gonna say, who's gonna make that test? Who's gonna make that? Is it gonna be multiple, multiple choice is gonna be essay and of course the Secretary of State. What the Secretary of State would indeed, Mr.
Kevin, I'm sorry, uh, Representative Beatty has. run his micke in. Representative Betty, you're recognized. Point of order, I would like to point of order.
On the batter on the table, I think it seems to me that he he was trying to do that, but Mr. Cavan just remember we're discussing Senate Bill 210, not saying you weren't, but you're, you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:49:59
recognized. Yes, sir, and I just point out from my viewpoint, I am, I understand somebody else's viewpoint disagrees with that, but this is my viewpoint. And so then we're gonna say, OK, who's gonna make that test? And what's the standard on that test? Multiple choice, essay, and then who grades it.
The Secretary of State, I'm assuming. So then I wanna say, how about we apply the same standard to y'all. So how about we say this, if we're gonna do this and this does apply to 210, OK? Then add to Bill 210. OK, add the bill 210. That before any of you vote on the House floor on a bill. That you have to stand before the secretary and read that entire bill. If you're gonna apply that standard, if you're gonna
mandate me to do that, then have the courage to mandate yourself because most of those bills are a lot shorter than his ballot titles, so that shouldn't be that hard. So have the courage to put it on yourself before you vote for a bill in the House. Stand before the secretary and read that bill to the secretary or have it read to you. Before you're allowed to vote on a bill. Now What this is actually designed to do.
is to create a train wreck. That's the reality. We've heard the Secretary of State testify in the Senate committee. On average, they were talking about how long does it take to read these bills in uh Senator Tucker had asked, hey, have y'all timed yourself on ringing these bells, Secretary of State responded yes and said, well, some of them, OK, they came up with the standard word counted on the average was 8 minutes, 8 minutes. So now if I'm a canvasser. And I've got 10 people standing in line.
They want to do this petition. The guy at the back of the line has got to wait an hour and 20 minutes before he's afforded an opportunity to even read. The ballot title. Now, how many do you think, how many people in here think that he's gonna sit here an hour and 20 minutes. So let's talk about the reality of what this bill really does. This bill is designed to create a train wreck to discourage citizens from from exercising
their right to sign a petition. That's what this bill is designed to do. I, I don't want to talk about all this other stuff because that's the reality. That's absolutely the reality and when we talk about fraud. OK. I wanna bring up, I believe, uh representative uh. Crawford had mentioned, well, there was a case where uh there's an instance where the Secretary of State said there was 5000 signatures that were done wrong. Or potentially fraud.
And uh I think one page where 22 separate signatures were signed by the same person. Why wouldn't know, why wouldn't that refer to the prosecutor? If that truly happened and it was that bad. If it was that bad a fraud, why wouldn't that refer to the prosecutor and why wasn't it prosecuted. We have the processes in place. We have the processes in place. So why don't we, why don't we work to enforce the laws that we have instead of doing this
because here's what this does. I'm a conservative. And a lot of you people on this committee say you're conservative. I want you to explain to me what's conservative about this bill. How, how is, uh, adding extra government mandates on citizens square with being a conservative. How does, how does growing government to this point where government is now regulating, aren't we for deregulating government? Are we forgetting regulations and that what us conservatives
want. But now we're adding. Regulations on to the citizens. So I'm gonna need somebody to explain what in this bill is conservative and I'd really like an answer to that. And I do want to finish with this and, and when I say this, I'm gonna finish with a couple of things. And, and when I say this, I'm generally not trying to pick on anybody on this committee.
What I'm going to do is ask you to search. Your soul. And search yourself. Because this is at this point it's not about politics. It's about right and wrong. OK, so if you vote for this bill. Know that you're gonna have to own it, and I don't mean politically. I don't mean politically at all. You're gonna have to own it. You're gonna have to own it when you look at your neighbor. You're gonna have to uh on it when you look at children at school, when you pick your kids
up, you're gonna have to own it when you look at your children, your grandchildren. You're gonna have to own it with your spouse, you're gonna have to own it when you look in the mirror. And the fact of the matter is, this is wrong. If you can own it, that's fine. If you can look at yourself after you're doing, that's fine. I cannot, and I'm not picking on you and I'm taking politics out of it. Do what is right. Search your soul and do what is right on this. That's what I'm asking.
Speaker 228
1:55:30
And with that, I'm more than happy to take any questions. Thank
you, Mr. Cavin, for those remarks. Are there any questions about the committee? All right, seeing no questions by the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:55:43
committee. Thank you, Mr. Kevin and thank you again, Mr.
Chairman for how you do this. I appreciate those kind words. Thank you very much. Next we have Mr. Joey McCutcheon.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
1:56:06
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joey McCutcheon, Fort Smith. Here is a citizen, uh, once
again. I'd like for the committee to go with me to what we've heard are hot days in the summer. I stood on Garrison Avenue last summer repeatedly and particularly at one motorcycle rally, um, where motorcycles were going up and down, uh, Garrison Avenue in
Fort Smith and also go with me to North 50th Street outside the rodeo grounds in Fort Smith where car after car are going by as we're trying like heck to get signatures. So these are the contexts that we're dealing with, um, and also when mom and dad are coming by us and we're asking for signatures, uh, and they've got a screaming child with them and That's the context and
practically speaking, what we're doing here today. is going to deny this petition process. Because people aren't gonna wait around when when they say, hey, my mother-in-law's in there and she's waiting on me. Where do I sign? Um, what this is gonna do, uh, we've heard it referred to as a train wreck by Jimmy Cavin, but this is a roadblock. I mean, it is purely and simply a roadblock
to the people of Arkansas, Mr. Ray. The people of Arkansas. That's what this is, and we're seeing roadblock after roadblock to our rights. And that's important, Mr.
McCutcheon. Let me just stop you for a second, and I
know I don't think you meant it personally, uh, but let's not refer to committee members individually. It that's not productive, it's not helpful. I, I understand. I think you're just trying to emphasize the importance of
this, but I, and I just don't
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
1:58:15
think that that's, that's productive my apologies and I won't, I won't do that again. You know, we've, we've heard talk about these ballot titles. Uh, my friends at family council, uh, put out a publication that, that uh in 2016, uh, that's, that's 9 years ago, uh, 2006. uh there was a, uh, marijuana amendment that was 10,000 words long. So since I have a little more time since again,
graciously giving our time. I wonder how many words that is in the ballot title and how long that would take to read uh to mom and dad uh when her mom first and then dad as we're trying to get signatures uh during the motorcycle rally or is there scrambling to get into the rodeo. And, and now we've heard that we should shorten these ballot titles. That's what we want to do, you know, we're gonna shorten these ballot
titles and then you know what's gonna come next? The job of the AG who says that this ballot title is misleading. And that's gonna be because we've left out words that we would have put in, but we're, we know that we're gonna have to read this. And then I'm gonna wanna sign one of these uh petitions on Garrison Avenue and you know what? When the canvasser says, uh, Mr.
McCutcheon, I'm gonna read this to you. You know what? I'm gonna tell the canvasser I've read it and I don't want you to read it to me and then the canvasser is gonna hand it to me and say, you need to read it yourself and I'm gonna say I've already read it and I'm not going to read it here. Now give me the petition and I'm gonna sign it and then because of all the crimes that have been alleged, uh, they're gonna get in trouble, right? If I sign it?
or is that unclear in this bill, uh, but that's what's gonna happen because the Bubba of Arkansas, uh, we read things generally and we're pretty stubborn and I've been called more than a few names in my career, hard-headed, and then I'm really gonna research the law because I think my constitutional, when they won't allow me to sign that petition because I'm so hardheaded. What's going to happen at that point? I think I'm gonna sue because I think probably my
First Amendment rights have been violated and I don't, I don't think that's fair. But, but it is logical, uh, to, to make the assumption here that uh we're, where, where does this slippery slope end? I mean, are we, are we gonna next, are we gonna insist that we go in the ballot box because people aren't reading things, I mean. I mean, I mean, it's, it's logical. But, but this is important and,
and we've heard solutions proposed. But please think about the practicality of this. Do we really think we've heard, uh, we heard a uh the testimony from down here that canvas canvassers have misled, um. Well, do we really think that reading this on Garrison Avenue, uh, to someone is really gonna solve that problem that they're gonna understand what they've just heard because you're reading in the middle of a
motorcycle rally. I don't think so. We've got laws on the books that stop this type of thing. And, and what, what about the, I think in Fort Smith Public schools, we have students that speak. I don't know, hundreds of languages maybe 100, uh. 30, 40, uh, but a lot of different languages in Fort Smith Public schools. So what about for those people? We're gonna say time out, ma'am, you speak Vietnamese. I'm gonna
have to have somebody, uh, read this to you that speaks Vietnamese. Is, is that a, is that a concern? Um, but these ballot titles are long. I mean, 8, we heard testimony on the other, on the other side that 8 minute 8 minutes to read this, 8 minutes to read a ballot title. This hurts every day. The, the, the, the foyer, uh, initiatives, uh, the, the marriage.
Amendments, the grassroots, that's what this is hurting and that's why I'm here. I'm not here for the marijuana people or the casino people that can spend again multi-millions of dollars higher all the canvassers they want and they're gonna have, they're gonna get, they're gonna get there, um, as, as we say they're, they're cheapening our constitution, but I don't think it's cheapening our constitution to have a a a bill, a FOIA bill in this. I don't think it's cheapening our, our Constitution to have a marriage
amendment in our constitution, and I think you would agree with that, but one day, as I've said over and over, and we've heard testimony, the shoe will be on the other foot and the Republicans here will be on the outside looking in. And we will want those rights for our grandkids and this just isn't another bill. It's the reason I stay here all day long. This just isn't another bill. This is our constitutional rights. This isn't the
marijuana, the marijuana amendment in our Constitution. This is our right to petition our government. We the people mobilizing people. There's no more special of a process than that. And I hope you understand that, please. You know, don't pass this. Give grassroots people the opportunity, please to, to make their case with the law if they
think it's necessary. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCutcheon. We did have a question, Representative Meeks, you're
Chair
Unverified
2:04:32
recognized. Thank, thank you for, sir, for, for being here. I know it's a long drive from, from Fort Smith. Uh, I think I'm here and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:04:40
I I appreciate the point you're making on Republicans being on the minority because as a senior member I was around when Republicans were in the minority in this body, so I fully get the point you're making. Uh, during your, your testimony, you said you felt like this could be a
violation of the First Amendment, and I'm just wondering specifically which of the 5 items you are thinking that this would be a concern for. the, you're talking about
Speaker 241
2:05:04
which amendment? No, no, you said that you thought that this was a violation of your First Amendment rights, right, yeah, there,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:05:11
there's 5 enumerated rights listed in the First Amendment. I'm just wondering which of those 5, you know, there's, you know, freedom of religion, freedom of press, so forth, which one of those freedom of speech when I, when
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:05:26
I'm from, when I'm not permitted uh to sign a petition, uh, because I haven't read it or because uh the canvasser wants me to read it. Uh, but, but, and I haven't thoroughly researched it, uh, but I think that's gotta be a violation of my rights when, when I at home, uh, spend an hour to read a for you and I go up to sign and then I'm denied my right, uh, and I'm sure there is a right. I'm denied my right
to, to sign a petition because this body says that it has to be read to me, big government, uh, big brother. says it has to be read to me and I'm hardheaded enough to say, no, I don't want it read to me and I've already read it and, and then the canvasser is in jeopardy, um, by all these other bills, uh, and, and as we've talked, we don't even know if it's gonna invalidate all the canvassers' signatures. There are just so many unanswered questions here. I don't know that I answered your question,
uh, but, but that's just my initial thoughts on that, and then,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:06:35
and then My last question is, is, um, do you think folks should understand what they're signing before they sign it, or do you think they should just be able to sign it whether they understand
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:06:45
or not. I think there, I think that, that it varies. I think there are, there are people uh who they're gonna sign all of these, right? Because they believe that that they should be a lawful vote, right? Uh, I think there, there are people, uh, they're not
gonna just like legislators who, who aren't gonna read bills and they're not going to know. what they're signing, you know, there are those people in our society who will not be informed either on this end or the the vote in and then there's, there's people who, who they'll know everything about it and uh so I think it, I think it varies. OK, all right, thank you, thank you for your time being
here today. Thank you, sir. All right, any other questions by the committee? Mr. McCutcheon, thank you for being here. Appreciate your remarks. Thank you.
All right, next we have John Gaskin, John Gaskin, John Gaskin. Next we have Kristen Stewart Kristen Stewart, Kristen Stewart, next we have. Andrew Chambers. Andrew Chambers, Andrew Chambers. JP Tribble. go. Not here. Doctor Choate
said that she had to leave recall.
Julia Taylor. Staylor, just state your name for the record and any group you're here representing
Speaker 22
2:08:16
and you're recognized, present your remarks. Yes sir, um, I'm Julia Taylor. I'm representing myself as a citizen, um, and I would also like to
Speaker 24
2:08:25
thank you for your conduction of these committee meetings, um, I've been in several and um As a citizen, I very much appreciate that um you are running it in this way that I'm
able to uh come back in the evening. I left, had to go to work in the morning, so I didn't get to speak in the morning. Also y'all weren't to that bill yet, but um, anyway, thank you and thank you committee members, um, I know it's a long day. Um The first thing I would like to say, um, is Vote no on this bill. Um, the second thing I'd like to say is that The only ballot initiative.
That made it to the ballot. And, and had its votes counted. Was the casino ballot initiative. That's the only one. So first of all, I'm not sure why we're in such a fret. No one has been prosecuted for fraud, just emphasizing that some other people have, have said that if there was fraud,
I, I would hope it would be dealt with. But it seems to not have been, um, So far. And then finally, I'll get to my more personal um Testimony, which is um again, I'm a volunteer, I want to reemphasize that. I've spent the past 3 years of my life and certainly the past 3 very, very hot summers, um, volunteering to
collect signatures for um education, ballot initiatives. I did also carry other ballot initiatives. Um, as a volunteer coordinator, I want to stress that, uh, we always had the uh AG letter and the ballot title attached. OK, um, even during the learns referendum, which um my friend, I'm sure y'all are sorry that
she's not here, but my friend Veronica McLean attempted to read the um Ballot title of the Les uh referendum. That was 148 pages printed front and back with pretty small print. The um Secretary of State or AG's office went back and forth with us several times, um, so the fact that it was that long was not of our choice.
Um, but if I had that, it would take me much, much longer than 8 minutes to read the entire ballot title. Um I'm really passionate about public education. And this spell initiative process has given me the power to do something for public education. I do other things too, and there are plenty of other things to do. I honestly
couldn't do what you all do, um. I, I could not be here, uh, the hours that you're here, um, I could not read all the bills that you have to read. Um But the process has given me that, that power, um. As Mr. McCutcheon said, people are in a hurry. Uh, they do not want to wait 8 minutes.
Let alone longer to sign a petition. Most of the time people that were coming to sign our petitions or people that already knew what was in In the ballot title. They had already read it. They had done their research. Um And, and they would not have stayed to sign, maybe a few. Um, people want to sign, but they don't want to be inconvenienced.
And so I feel strongly that this would Um, Prevent people signing. And I also feel very strongly as someone who worked really hard to recruit volunteers to help in this process. Again, volunteers, we don't get paid. We're doing it out of The passion we have for whatever the issue is. And It's pretty hard to get volunteers.
Um, at least for, for the education amendment. I'll speak, speak to that. It's pretty hard to get people to volunteer. Um, and this bill is going to make it even harder to get people to volunteer. So I feel very strongly that what this bill is doing and the others as well, is that once again, we're making things harder for the grassroots movements, the volunteer-based movements.
And we're, we're making it easy for That whatever Um Sorry, and for whatever. Issues have a lot of money. Right? And it's been pointed out over and over that there was a lot of fraud and a lot of it was from paid canvassers, some of it might have been from volunteers. Um, I think there are better ways to address. The, the fraud.
That's it. Thank you. All right, thank you, Ms. Taylor. Are there any
questions about the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your remarks, Ms. Taylor. Appreciate you being here. Next we have Abigail Rector. Rector you just state your name in any organization you're here representing, you're recognized to
Abigail Rector
Unverified
2:14:54
present your remarks. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Abigail Rector, and I am representing myself as a constituent.
So I am against this bill because I think it actually expresses no confidence in the average citizen to possess enough intelligence or integrity to properly collect signatures to get a petition together. I, for one, trust that the majority of Arkansans believe that the law As stated in Arkansas code 7-9-103 sufficiently provides the instruction and guidance for each individual to know what the law requires.
To add new laws to a process that already works is redundant. It also voices a distrust to everyday citizens who only want a voice. Adding more laws will do nothing to stop those who are dishonest. It will only hinder those who already abide by the law. Furthermore, I choose to trust in the canvasser's willingness to accept the greater responsibility to make sure the process is done right. This bill says that the signer
would now have to read the ballot title in the presence of the canvasser or to have the ballot title read aloud to them. To the designer in the presence of the canvasser. This will only make it more difficult to collect the required number of signatures. Almost impossible in many instances. Frankly, I feel insulted that my state government is telling me I may not have the ability to explain to my fellow citizens
what the issue is in layman's terms. Being a first generation American citizen who had to learn to speak English at 10 years old. I am saddened by the fact that my representatives may think I'm just an incompetent commoner who can't think for myself, at least not enough to abide by our election laws. Some have pointed out instances of distorted petitions. Well, that is what it means to be free. Your experience is not a reason for our elected to pass
laws that will control and constrain the people
Speaker 72
2:17:12
to do everything perfectly. That is what freedom means. So please vote no on SB 210. Any questions? All right, thank you, Ms.
the committee? Seeing none, thank you for those remarks. Thank you. And last we have Kwami Abdul Bay. Mr. Abdul Bay, I think you know how this process works. You're recognized.
Speaker 80
2:17:44
I'm Kwame Abdulbay, the elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, um. Before I begin talking about uh SB 210. I just want to give you guys a maximum of law that one of the uh committee members actually mentioned earlier in this committee and it was also mentioned on the Senate side. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And what you're trying to do is
Speaker 82
2:18:14
you're trying to legislate ignorance. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if someone claims that they were duped. And they signed something that they wasn't supposed to sign, ignorance of the law is no excuse and that's, that's what we have to live by. There were a couple of questions that were asked that I would like to answer one question was as far as um
Speaker 80
2:18:46
Should all uh Under this law, if it's passed. All of the signatures of a particular canvasser will be thrown out uh if that canvasser has been found in uh a secret uh Proceeding uh in the Secretary of State's office that's not covered under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act, um. what all of those signatures will be thrown out.
Speaker 82
2:19:19
What current law states is that if we have a canvasser that has collected 1000 signatures and it's found that on one petition part, there was an era then only those 10 signatures on that petitioner part on that petition part will be thrown out. But now under this new law, if you guys vote against the Constitution and against the people and put this.
Into law then all of the signatures will be thrown out even though that mistake was only made on one petition part, so I want you to think about that. And I'm glad that that question was brought up by more than one committee member. Another committee member asked about First Amendment. This, the US Supreme Court in 1998, answered that question.
Uh, Arkansas is one of 16 states that has direct democracy in its constitution. And one of uh a case from one of those other states went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1998 because similar laws were being enacted then and the people fought back and went to the US Supreme Court and won and what the US Supreme Court said is
that signing a petition is political speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment. and by due process. You guys, when you write these laws and sponsor these laws and both of these laws, you have to consider everything, all of the consequences of you choosing to do go down this road.
The Supreme Court has said that this political speech. When you. Enact laws that violate. That First Amendment right. Then it becomes actionable. So what you guys are doing is setting up the state of Arkansas to go into court and to
Speaker 80
2:21:42
defend this and uh I've heard the sponsors say, oh, where the Attorney General agrees this, OK, the Attorney General is not God.
Speaker 82
2:21:55
BLR is not God, but we have to understand that. What what was said earlier, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Uh, another thing that was uh that I wanna bring light to is it keeps being brought up about uh people being duped. Into signing that led to this the the need for this law, uh, on the Senate side there were uh
several different people that testified to that point. However, to this date, and that happened 2 or 3 weeks ago, and to this date there has been no evidence presented to the public. of all of these allegations. And I found it very interesting that every single person that testified on the Senate side was from Salem County. Found that to be very interesting. So I went and did my own
investigation and I learned that. What happened was people signed it. And then the family council for the signatures and started calling people out and then that's when they wanted to take their signatures off and started calling the social, uh, not the social security scheme. The Secretary of State's office. That's what I found in my investigation on actually what happened.
Alright, so this particular bill. And this whole collection of bills. We can solve this problem if we decided. That it was important to pass legislation that required. Administrative rules to be uh promulgated as far as direct democracy is concerned. Because this stuff that we're
dealing with right here with passing these laws should actually be being done during the administrative uh rule propagation, uh, but and I've, I've said that the several legislators, a couple of them sitting at this table. What we need to do is let's go ahead and let's put it in here that we will do this in accordance with the Arkansas administrative Procedures Act so that the people have. Due process on the administrative level.
These this law as SB 210 and the other laws they have no mechanism no matter what this attorney from the Secretary of State's office tells you there is no mechanism in law that uh affords due process for any of this. But the due process is afforded under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act. So I asked. Simply, if you, if you're gonna do this, put that in the bill that this will be done in
accordance with the Arkansas administrative Procedures Act so that the due process is guaranteed. Another thing we have to go back to the emergency clauses. The state Supreme Court in safe surgery, Arkansas versus Thurston, 3 different times they talked about the importance of direct democracy and they talked
about the importance of there being a real emergency there is no emergency. The Supreme Court has said that I didn't say that. The Supreme Court said that. Yet we have a bill that you guys are gonna vote on and if you're voting on it then you're what you're saying is that that bill passes muster. Whether the US Supreme Court and the state Supreme Court both disagree with you if you vote on this bill.
So I asked that you vote against this bill and I also ask that if you wanna pass laws about direct democracy, why don't you talk to the people that do the work. That would be a very simple thing to do. Hey, this has happened. Let's talk to these campaign managers and the people that are running the volunteers and say, OK, how can we make this better and let's work together instead of working
against each other again, you guys are our subordinates. We are the people you are the legislature and the uh the constitution says that you. work for us. And I want you to act like that. I'm finished, please vote against it. Please give me a roll call vote and I'll take questions. All right, thank you, Mr.
Abdul Bay. Are there any questions by the committee?
saying no questions by the committee. Thank you for those remarks. All right, seeing no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:27:35
for your bill. Well thank you committee. We made it. So here we are. I appreciate you taking the time. I know a lot has been said today,
so I'm not going to say much. I'll just say, you know, I
think this uh bill does address an issue of canvassers misrepresenting to people what uh they're signing, and I think this allows for the signers to be informed about what they're signing, so that way, um, what gets on the ballot is truly has the support of Arkansans and That I'm
closed, I make a motion to pass. Representative Underwood is closed for his bill
and he's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion? Representative Crawford, you're recognized.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:28:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this has been a hard one for
me, um. I am so. Upset with all the fraud that came in. That People were told, oh, come sign this, so you won't have taxes on diapers and all kinds of junk throughout the whole state.
And I know I'm gonna make my friends. Down at the end of the table mad, but for that reason, for fraud and for what happened. I've got to vote for this. So I'll be voting yes. All right.
Any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion to pass on Senate Bill 210. All those in favor say
aye. All those opposed? The eyes
have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee. All right, we have
2 other bills that were brought to the attention of the committee earlier this morning, I believe. Representative Beatty, Senate Bill 296. Without objection. Yeah I mean. And
I want to check you about dinner. I had a dinner appointment at 6. Having a lock in
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:30:08
tonight in case y'all didn't know. Beta, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Howard Beatty
District 95 here to present, uh, Senate Bill 296, uh, is to amend the law concerning the designation of an early voting location by the county clerk and basically that's what the bill does, uh, it allows, um, an additional early voting location to be chosen by the county board of Election commissioners, um, Within the county seat, so with that I'll entertain any questions.
All right, Representative Beatty has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Collins? You're recognized. Sorry, I'm
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:31:03
just trying to pull this up and uh I don't want to rush through this because I, I, I wanna make sure I understand what exactly
we're doing here. Um, does this change who has authority for determining early voting sites from The clerk to the board of Election commissioners. Uh And I don't
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:31:22
think, I don't think it does. I, I think it just
allows the um designation of an additional early voting location by the county clerk. And, and
I have someone here that can, can speak to this and maybe go into more detail. Yeah, that might be good,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:31:38
um, if you don't mind, I just want to make sure I know what we're doing here exactly. Mr. Madison. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:31:54
is Chris Madison. I'm director of the state Board of Election commissioners, and this is a
state board, uh, bill that was proposed and if I may, to your question, what this does is the county clerk gets to designate one location in a single county seat county within the county seat as the law has always allowed the county board can uh create as many additional early voting locations if they want to by unanimous votes. This is clarifies that the county clerk has to designate within the county seat. The CBC gets to do anywhere
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:32:28
else. So currently the clerk could
designate the early voting location to be a location other than the county seat, and if this were to pass, they could only designate it
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:32:39
within the county seat. Is that right? That's correct. And if you look further down, it's not in this bill, but in that statutory section, a dual county seat, county clerk can designate county early vote county clerk uh locations in those two county seats and nowhere else. And so this mirrors that and this is really how it's done in about 74. the 75 counties across the state. Could you tell me about
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:33:02
the seventy-fifth county. What are they doing right now? And
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:33:05
where is it? So really what happened with this is this came about out of Crittenden County during this last general election, and there was some dispute over a early voting location outside of the county seat in West Memphis specifically and the Clark exercised and designated a church in West Memphis, which is outside of the county seat as the clerks designated early vote location. Well, that particular location, it went up in the Arkansas
Supreme Court ruled, saying that the clerk of a single county seat could designate anywhere in the county for the clerk's early voting designation spot and the way the law works is the clerk is legally responsible to conduct early voting. They have that legal responsibility. Historically in the 74 other counties, it's done either in the clerk's office in the county courthouse or building across the street, but to mirror the language we have in the dual county seat, this bill was proposed that they can do it in the county seat, which makes sense. Let's say the city owns a
civic center that would make a great early voting location and they can work out an agreement to do that in the county seat. Because the clerk must provide early voting. It's been done at the clerk's office in the courthouse. Well, if you've been to some courthouses across the state, they're not always conducive to voting, especially for two weeks, so you have some places, for example, like Saline County, they have the vote annexed across the street, which is much more conducive to voting. Well, that's considered the county clerk-run early voting location. And so this is just creating
that same rule for a single county
Speaker 266
2:34:37
seat clerk as what's doing in the dual county
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:34:41
seat clerks. Understood why is it that we
have a, what's the problem with what Crittenden County did? Why is it so bad what they did to do that in West Memphis if that was in their discretion, the
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:34:56
site, so the issue is the county board is a bipartisan group. So if the board is approving additional early voting locations outside of the county
seat. You, you have both parties deciding where those are gonna be. If you have a partisan person deciding where they could be, let's say someone is from one side of the county or another side of the county and all of the early voting is going to take place at wherever the county clerk picks, it can affect the partisan aspect of it and so by doing it within the county seat, that's selected by the structure of the county and. are coming to the county seat to conduct business, and this is designed, and this is grown out of over time with the growth of early voting that the county
clerk conducts early voting in the clerk's office. That's how it all the laws are set up and the next session we're going to look at trying to clean this up a little bit to make it a little more clear on early vote and all that, but that's next session. But this is so that people coming to the courthouse to conduct business can vote if they want to. Well, courthouses aren't good for that. So this is trying to keep it within the county seat, which is where the center of government for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:36:00
the county is. One more clarification, if I may, so the county Board of
Election commissioners are all 2 to 1 Republican to Democrat. Are they
Speaker 263
2:36:09
able to decide by a majority of the vote where the early voting locations are, or do they have to have a unanimous, it
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:36:16
requires a unanimous vote and actually part of this bill also includes that they have to make. A positive vote for additional early voting locations each time. One of the things the Supreme Court ruled was that let's say we selected, I don't know, First Baptist Church last election for the early voting, right? We're gonna run 2 weeks there. Well, the Supreme Court came back and said, well, if you don't have a vote to move it, then you have to do it there
again. Well, churches don't necessarily agree to be vote centers or voting places year after year after year because it may impact their services. So what this also does is it requires a un unanimous vote of the election commission each cycle to select additional early voting locations. OK. Thank you.
You're welcome. All right, Mr. Madison, I'm sure you've explained this, but I do have a question. Just at the very beginning of the bill, the polling sites for each election shall be the same as those established for the immediately preceding general
election unless changed by the county Board of Election commissioners within a state subdivision D1A of the section does not apply to, and then one a school election. Under 614106, that's new language and then it refers to the additional early voting location chosen by the county board of Lakes Commission. I totally understand an additional early voting location if you're just wanting to add another early voting location, that's great for the voters, gives them more opportunity, but this also says that that does not apply.
Specifically to a school election. Why does it not apply to a school election. So that's covering
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:37:49
the 614106 is your odd year school elections. So the school elections we'll be having here in May and November of this year, um, these rules don't apply to it. These only apply to the preferential primary and the general election and historically, and this is one of the things we've got to clean up in the law, quite frankly, is the CBEC historically was responsible for election day.
polling locations, but with the expansion of early voting, we're still using the term polling locations, but really the CBC is functionally over election day polling locations and then these additional sites if they agree to do additional sites and that's why that's accepted out like this. It requires them to make a positive vote. OK, and then
for the early voting additional early voting sites, I guess they're going to do that for each election from this point forward, is that right? That
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:38:38
is correct, and that's historically how it's been done. It's just the Supreme Court ruled that you have to use one if you don't vote to change
it and what would really happen is we would wind up losing a lot of our additional early voting locations because if you're on the hook one year, you mean I'm on the hook forever. So that, that's part of it is it makes that positive effort. Also, population change, directions change, the makeup of the commission change where you need to do your early voting locations change and so this gives the board flexibility to respond to the needs of the citizens. OK, all
right, very good. Any other questions by the committee?
saying no further questions by the committee. Uh There's no one signed up to speak for or against these bills, Representative Beatty, you're recognized
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:39:29
to close to the bill. I'm, I'm close and would offer a motion to pass. Representative Beatty's made a
motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing down all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Next we have Representative Wooldridge. Senate Bill 272. You're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:40:05
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Jeremy Wooldridge, State Representative District one. Senate Bill 272 is, I believe simple bill does exactly what it says it does. It requires the voter registration applications to be blank when they are handed out and it allows for the person registering to vote to select their party affiliation with that, I look forward to your questions.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:40:44
All right, any questions about the committee, Representative Ray? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question, Representative Wooldridge, um, I think I agree with this bill. I'm just wondering sort of what sort of what, what precipitated the need for it. Do you know the backstory on, can you
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:41:01
share that with us? I do. This was brought to us by the Association of Counties, the clerks, uh, we're having some issues in um I think multiple counties. I know one specifically, uh, where these were being filled out by someone handing out the forms for people
to be registered to vote. They were pre-filling out. One party or the other, and then people were having to try to make the correction there, so this just. mandates that they are blank when they're handed out. All
right, any other questions about the committee, Representative Rose? OK, no, no
question. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing that, we have no one to sign up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Wo recognized to close the bill. I'm close to the bill. Make a motion do pass closed for the
bill. He's made a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing the discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. are Seeing no further items on the agenda. That's I Without objection, will be a special. So there's no further items on the agenda for tonight. However, Um, without objection, Wednesday, March 12th, we're gonna set
House bill 1069 and 1070. OK, both 1069 and 1070 a special orders of business. Once again, the next 3 Mondays upon adjournment, we're going to hear constitutional amendments. I'd like to start at the top, those that we did not hear last time will be first on the agenda this time and then we'll uh we'll keep going. Is that it? All right, and that's it. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025.
HB1560 McGrew TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; AND TO REQUIRE PRICING INFORMATION FOR LIGHTING COMPONENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS.
HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS.
HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA.
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.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1637 Ray CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES AND LEGISLATIVELY REFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
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.
SB209 K. Hammer TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB210 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF THE PETITION IN THE PRESENCE OF A CANVASSER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB272 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO PROHIBIT PRE- FILLED FIELDS ON A VOTER REGISTRATION FORM IN CERTAIN INSTANCES; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 6.
SB296 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING LOCATION BY THE COUNTY CLERK.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
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.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF HJR1020 K. Brown 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.
HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025.
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.
HB1064 D. Whitaker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO ALLOW PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT.
HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
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.
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.
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.
HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES.
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.
HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES OF CERTAIN NONCITIZENS; AND TO AMEND
ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13.
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.
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION HB1470 Beaty Jr. TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 5, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Gail Choate
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 22
Abigail Rector
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 80
Speaker 82
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 73
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 33
Speaker 35
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 40
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 159
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 133
Chair
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 214
Speaker 61
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 228
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 43
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 266
Speaker 263