State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (72)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1574
Act 453
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
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 |
|
HB1549
Act 489
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1549 is now Act 489 |
|
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. |
|
HB1410
Act 323
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS. HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS. | Unger | Notification that HB1410 is now Act 323 |
|
HB1548
Act 375
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1548 is now Act 375 |
|
HB1560
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS. 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 |
|
HB1607
Act 318
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM. | Rose | Notification that HB1607 is now Act 318 |
|
HB1608
Act 319
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM. HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC R…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE … | Rose | Notification that HB1608 is now Act 319 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in 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. |
|
HJR1005
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1005 Long N AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1006
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS". HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HJR1007
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDER…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1012
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1013
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTA…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1015
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICT…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE … | K. Brown | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in 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. |
|
SB188
Act 272
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB188 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLIC POSTING … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB188 is now Act 272 |
|
SB209
Act 273
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
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 |
|
SB291
Act 279
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB291 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPLAINTS OF ELECTIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND THE DEADLINES … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB291 is now Act 279 |
|
SB294
Act 280
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB294 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION AUDITS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION AUDITS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB294 is now Act 280 |
|
SB295
Act 281
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB295 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPROPRIATION FOR ELE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPROPRIATION FOR ELECTION EXPENSES; AND TO ALLOW COMPENSATION FOR A … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB295 is now Act 281 |
|
SB296
Act 282
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
SB308
Act 284
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB308 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE; AND TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO A WRITE-IN … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB308 is now Act 284 |
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FENSES. DEFERRED BILLS Page 3 of 5 Number Sponsor Subtitle 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1064
· 1 mention in agenda
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 |
|
HB1070
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…POSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
|
HJR1004
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Page 4 of 5 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. |
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
Full agenda today, so, uh, I, I would ask the committee as always, but, but please try to. Keep your questions So we can try to get through as many of these as we possibly can today because sir we do have some people lighting the agenda that have some people from the public that want to speak, and I would certainly like to get to those bills today, so. With that said, we're uh we'll start out with 15 House Bill 1524 Representative Woodridge.
Please identify yourself for the committee and You Welcome, proceed. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
0:58
you, Mr. Chair. Jeremy Wooldridge, uh, Representative District one, House Bill 1524, um, is a department bill, department came to me asking for some clarification on capital expenditure and improvements, so Act 666 of 2023 changed the uh bid maintenance project threshold, uh, what this does is changes and adds subsection G, which takes away some of the
requirements for that bid process with newspaper formal. openings and it streams streamlines that and allows them to just get quotes uh from multiple contractors for projects.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40
Representative Collins. Thank you Mr. Chair. So I, I see what it's doing here. I remember that bill from 2023 that actually increased, if I don't recall incorrectly the uh
threshold up to $50,000. So what's the rationale for them to go up to $150,000 to kind of avoid the bidding procedure in our normal procurement rules. Thank you, Representative. So
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:04
that that act actually my understanding is increased
it from 50 to 150. And all this bill is doing is allowing them to not have to go through the formal bid process where they advertise in a newspaper for a set period of time, and they open up all of the formal bidding processes. This would allow them if they've
got a roof in a state park that needs to be corrected, they would be able to call 3 or 4 roofing contractors around the state, uh, get bids for that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:35
project and then invest back into our state parks. So, if I can just direct you to the bill here in existing A1A, it looks to me like it's referring to $50,000 not $150 and that in on page 2 is where you add $150,000 as the new threshold just for these Department of Parks, Heritage
and tourism expenditures. So can you show me where it's $150,000 currently. Uh, yes sir,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
3:01
it's in Act 666 and with the chair's permission, I'd like to ask, uh, someone from the park. to come up, Jeff King and Clay Stone to come up and they may can help
answer some of those questions. Now please come up. Identify yourselves. And then your to go.
Speaker 19
3:29
Good morning, Jeff King, Deputy director for the division of State Parks. Uh, lay stone, uh,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:40
general counsel Parks, heritage and tourism. Um, well, I guess could you guys is this correct that it's currently $150,000 for
these capital expenditures, and if so, can you just direct me to where that is because just from what I'm seeing here in this bill, it looks like it's being moved from 50 to 150.
Speaker 18
4:00
Representative Collins, um, I'll, I'll speak to that just for a moment, um, 2 years ago, Act 666 changed that threshold from 50,000 to 150,000 in other sections of the code, but this was an area that was uh left out of that, that previous bill and act, and so this is really kind of a cleanup that allows us to move forward with this, with this process that was approved two
Seeing no other Questions from the committee. Is there anyone to speak? I have no one to speak on
the bill, uh, Representative Woodrid. to close for your bill. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
4:41
you, Mr. Chairman. I'm closed for my bill. I make a
motion to pass. Alright, we have a motion to pass, so any discussion on the motion. Saying none. All
Speaker 30
4:53
those in favor say aye. and he poses. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The next bit we'll, we'll hear is going to be HB 1549, uh, is Scott Richardson here. Representative Richardson here? Alright, well, Next bill down will be uh House Bill 1574 Representative Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
5:40
representative Anbo District 87. Go ahead. So before you is House Bill 1574, we did a lot of uh JPR meetings this summer about uh resident and domicile, referring to those that can get signatures, um, Mr. Lancaster. Basically told us for the hole in our law was at, so this is trying to fix that, uh, where they have to be residents of the
state and is domicile of the state.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
6:22
And with that, I'll take any questions. Representative in that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
6:29
define what is a domicile? And I didn't bring that with me, um, not only are they a resident, but they actually, I think, live within that residence in that home in that address because they were using addresses of a hotel. We want
them to use permanent addresses for the state
of Arkansas. And I'm sure Maybe, um, And
we're just trying to make it where they have to be from the state. And it's paid canvassers for statewide initiatives state uh referendums and the county local petitions. And in the back of it, there is
a penalty if they, um, submit. Uh, I canvasser, um, that is not
from the state, and it's a fine of $2500. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:31
um, what about like a college student? What would the domicile be of a college student who lives not at
home. Um, well, my daughters when they
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
7:46
were in college, they had a permanent address in Conway, Arkansas. So they had no intent. Uh, their intent was to be living within that county or in that address. Does that make sense, Representative Collins, but I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:59
guess if they are domiciled in the place where they're going to college, that means that they couldn't act as a canvasser when they're back home for a break or for the summer they're
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
8:11
residents of Arkansas, yes, sir, it doesn't matter. Correct.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:16
Well, it does seem like it matters because it's an and it's a resident and domiciled, and if they're domiciled elsewhere, if they go to college out of state, say then they couldn't canvas back home. Isn't that
right? I think they still have a
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
8:46
permanent address at their mom and dad's home. That would be their permanent residency and their actual probably permanent domicile except for the college when they're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:59
in college. Well, if that's the case, if their domicile is back home, then
someone who's attending a college here in state could not canvas. At college. I guess, I guess it can't be both either they're domicile at
college or they're domiciled at home, but either place, it, it uh would
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
9:21
limit them. I don't So I'm just gonna be real honest. This is exactly what he told me that we had to have because what we had was we had people who were saying they were residents living in a hotel. Not actual living in Arkansas. And I think somebody sent me so domicile is intent to return.
Did I say that right, maybe? Um So This was the suggestion that he gave to tighten this up where it would just be residents from the state of Arkansas. He said residents leaves it open that anybody can say they're a resident of Arkansas, if they move into
a hotel, but they're not domiciled in that hotel. Well, I, I mean, I don't doubt that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:13
it would have that impact. I just wonder if it's going to
have a broader impact that maybe is not necessarily what's intended if the intent is just to limit the hotel situation, um, the other question I'd ask is about the limit, limiting the domicile to the county where someone lives where a local petition is to be submitted, so in a local petition election, you can't even canvass across the county line, so. I mean, a lot of people live Near another county they may have an interest in something going on over there. Maybe it's
a business interest, maybe it's personal interest, and you're saying they couldn't go from Pulaski to Sele or. From one county to another,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
11:34
It, uh, appears to read that way, yes. Thank you. And this is only if they are paid canvassers. This is not like So that would be the only way it would be limited, Representative Collins, if it's a paid canvasser. Not many local petitions are done by paid canvassers. All right, Representative Hawk.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
12:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that was gonna leave me to my next question. So if that student that lives, let's say in Little Rock and goes to Fayetteville, if they're not paid and they just want to volunteer they could still do
this in any county they want to go to. But if they were to be paid, that's when this would apply. OK, that's all I need to know.
Thank you. Thank you. See other questions from the committee, uh, you ready to call for your bill?
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
12:34
I'm closed. I would appreciate a good vote. We're
trying to fix an issue uh in the state of Arkansas. uh paid canvassers can be bussed in from anywhere and get petitions of signatures, so we're just trying to fix that. And I'm, I'm sorry, I, there's
no public comment on this either. And no one signed up to speak. For I guess OK. I would like to speak. I'm
just late. Uh, please come up to the table and identify yourself.
Speaker 82
13:09
Oh Kwame Abdulbay, the elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. Um The concerns that the concerns
Speaker 80
13:25
that I have with this. particular bill is that it shows a lack of understanding for what actually is the legal definition of domicile. Here in Arkansas based on case law.
Um, one of the, one of the uh exceptions. To the domicile rule that the Supreme Court has given is that if you come into the state uh to work. If you come into the state. And you're paid to work. Uh, and in that, in that particular case, uh, they reference people coming into the state to work at the Air Force base and they receive inow domicile.
Because they're in the state to work, uh, so when you say that this bill is strictly for paid canvassers and those paid canvassers are being paid to be here then. It conflicts with the actual legal definition of domicile. Also the legal definition of dumb and sour is a state matter. It's not a county matter. You can't have county and uh you can't have dumb and so in a county. You can only have dumb
and so in the state. So that's, that's just
Speaker 84
14:57
what I want to bring up. Thank you for your testimony.
There any questions? All right, thank
Speaker 85
15:04
you very much. I Did you sign up on the sheet?
I'm gonna allow this this one time, but this
was posted on the agenda for this committee. Please identify yourself and who you're representing
Jp Tribble
Unverified
15:35
for the committee and your Good. My apologies, Mr. Chairman, I was unaware that this was coming forward today. Um, I'm, my name is JP Tribble. I'm a private citizen and an attorney here in
the state of Arkansas. I do not represent any entity or any special interest. Um, I would like to point out that this is modifying Arkansas code 79103 and this statute reflects the requirements for signing a in the statute, it has requirements both for paid canvassers and unpaid canvassers, for example, 79103A4
says a person shall not act as a paid canvasser on a statewide initiative or referendum petition if the sponsor is not provided certain information, so subsection 4 requires to have paid canvasser. Subsection 5 says a person shall not Act as a canvasser unless he or she is a citizen of the United States. That refers to all canvassers both paid and unpaid, um, subsection 6, which this seeks to amend currently says a person shall not act as a
canvasser unless he or she is a resident of this state. That applies to both paid and unpaid canvassers. The president Bill. A man's 7910386 to say a person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of the state and is domiciled in the state, which would apply to that would apply to uh volunteer college students who are collecting signatures, not for
pay. I would also like to point out the fact that if a student, for example, from another state is living in Arkansas going to the University of Arkansas Fayetteville, they are considered a state of their home resident, they would be paying out of state tuition because their parents live, for example, in the state of New York. Therefore, even if they have the intent to remain indefinitely in Arkansas, which is one of the legal definitions of domicile, they are considered a resident
of New York, not of Arkansas. So if you have a student going to college here. That does not give them domicile in the state of Arkansas. And should they have tax liability, that liability would be to the state of New York. Because they're resident of the state of New York. So It Seems to be that this bill would apply to all canvassers, both
volunteer and paid. So I'm open to
any questions otherwise I have no further comment. Representative Warlaw you recognize for a
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
18:35
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you tell me the current legal definition of a
Jp Tribble
Unverified
18:41
resident when it's referring to this bill. Uh, my understanding of the legal definition of a resident is a person who lives in the state of Arkansas, um, they also could concurrently live in another state.
You can be a resident in more than one state. The distinction between resident and domicile is you may be a resident of more than one state. If you're, if that is the case, you domicile would be declared in one of those states of residency. So for example, if I live in Little Rock and I have a house, let's say in uh Florida. But my primary resident, I would
declare being a resident either of Arkansas or Florida. I could be a registered voter here, spend more than half of the year here and uh the, this would be my permanent base and my intention is to stay here, but I can still have a house in Florida. I would be considered a resident of both states, but a domiciled in Arkansas. OK, so.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:49
If you could be a resident in multiple states, you can't
register to vote in multiple states. All right, Mr.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
20:08
Chair, I'll reserve the right to come back. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for that clarification, and as I look at the statute that aligns with what it looks like to me that this applies to people who were paid and unpaid canvassers. Can I just get you to confirm, do you believe that the section dealing with um
being domiciled in the county would also apply to paid and unpaid canvassers, so I, if I wanted to canvass for a petition, couldn't go to the next county
over and do that either, right? on the fact that this applies to paid as well as unpaid volunteer
Jp Tribble
Unverified
20:45
canvassers. Well, as it reads as it reads, it says, uh, a person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of the state and domiciled in the county where the petition will be submitted if acting as a
canvasser for a local petition. So, uh, Representative Collins, if I recall, you're the one that gave the example of someone residing, for example, near the county line in Pulaski County, but they may own a business in Saline County, and they may have interest in that. County, they would not be able to canvas or do any activity related to the petition in Saline County. Even as a volunteer, even as
Speaker 90
21:25
a volunteer, that's correct. Thank you.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
21:30
Representative Wartlaw. So in Arkansas code, it
says to be an Arkansas resident. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have to to require our legal residences in Arkansas, an individual must have an established a legal home of permanent character reside in Arkansas for 6 continuous months and have no per present intention of changing resident to a location outside of Arkansas. So, How could you be a resident of
two states at the same time because by that definition, You're establishing your public school. Uh, eligibility, tuition eligibility, tax purposes, and your voting eligibility. You're saying that is the present law as
Jp Tribble
Unverified
22:15
written. What is the site for that, uh. Is that, that sounds to me more like a definition of domicile than residency. I'll get you the site. I'm, I'm not
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
22:28
gonna sit here and write, read all this
off time, but it's off nexus. I looked it
up on, what, what is the statute number? It's under rule 2.26-51-1029. OK. So that is not, that is not something R51-1029. That's, that's a rule that is not uh in the statute. But that, having said that,
Jp Tribble
Unverified
22:53
that reflects, I don't recall where it is in the code off the top of my head, but there is a definition.
It may be under It may be under Title 9, Section 1, if I'm not mistaken, there is a definition for um domicile in that. Incorporates a similar definition domicile reflects the intent to remain indefinitely in a state. in a location. So if the rule that you're citing is saying that in order
to be a resident, you have to have a permanent abode here in Arkansas with the intent to remain. That essentially would reflect The requirements for a domicile. However, if you apply that in a, in a county situation. Uh If you have to be domiciled in that county then or a resident of that county which the present law does not require
That would be a huge distinction between the proposed bill and present law. Presently you could reside in Pulaski County under that definition in volunteered to collect signatures in Salem County. But under the proposed statute, you could not. OK,
thank you, Mr. Chair. Saying no other
questions. Thank, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we go back, I'll ask again, is is there anyone else that didn't sign up that wants to speak for or against this bill. Alright, seeing that Representative Barlow, are you prepared to call for your
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
24:52
bill? Yes, sir. um. If it pleases everybody, I mean, I can pull it down and make sure it says paid if that's what you want me to do, uh, Representative Collins, if that makes you feel better, um.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
25:07
It would be recognized. Thank you. It would make me feel
better for sure if the intent is to only cover paid. I, I mean, I do think this
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
25:17
covers more than paid. OK. I'll pull it down and amend it and
bring it back to you. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Bell. Next up we're gonna hear um House Bill. 1548. Representative makes you reckon. Well, there is an amendment they're going to be passing on an amendment gives a few minutes to pass that out.
Ah OK, it's relatively short amendment, uh, so you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:24
Chairman. The, the amendment just add Senator
Bryant as the Senate sponsor and uh unless
there's any questions, I'll make a motion
to pass on the amendment. We have a
motion to pass is any discussion on the motion? none, all those in
favor. I opposed. Right. Your Welcome to go ahead and present your
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:50
bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so, colleagues, uh, just a little quick history back in 2015, um, I passed a law that created the data and
transparency panel. The uh purpose of that panel was to get state agencies to begin sharing data for the benefit of our citizens and for the agencies and the operations and the, the first things that we had to do in order to get that done is we had to figure out what data that we even had. Uh, and so that, uh, with the passage of the data and transparency uh panel that set off, uh, took several years to to get that done to catalog so that we had a repository of what data we even had as a state and
to set up the policies on how that data is governed, what format it's in, and so forth to get the data to the point where it could be easily shared among state agencies. So now that that has been completed, uh, we're, we're getting ready to go to the The, the next phase of it and it's how do we to implement the use of that data across agencies to uh impact our citizens and our state government to make it as efficient as possible and make things as easy as possible.
So that's what this bill does. It's an, it's an agency bill. So what we're doing is we are going to eliminate the data and transparency panel because it's not needed any longer, and what the um uh uh DIS is going to do is It will have data experts, if you will, assigned in each agency. Those data experts will then work with the department to uh help in the utilization of that. It will also encode uh
make DIS an authorized user of that agency or an authorized user of that data to make sure that that data is properly protected as it as it needs to be, uh, and it will allow. Or um they said more uh efficiencies in government, uh, in in a nutshell, that's what the bill does. If anybody has any questions, I do have our uh data director, um, uh, Mr. Mcgo here with us. I'm sorry, I just
spaced his name off, uh. Uh, tell you what, I will let them introduce themselves so I don't, don't, don't mess their names up, um, I, I've been working with this gentleman for many years on on this project, but I'll let the, I'll let the two of them introduce themselves and if the if the committee has any uh questions of uh these two.
This is our chief data officer and our chief privacy officer for the state. Robert McGoo, uh, chief data
Speaker 127
29:32
officer with TSS. Jennifer Davis, chief privacy officer, TFF.
Speaker 76
29:37
All right. So are there any questions of the committee? Saying
none, Representative Binks, are you prepared to call for your bill? Uh, yes, that's, there's no one signed up to speak for against the bill or anyone in the
in the room? Saying none. Reno close
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
30:00
for you. Alright, thank you again, pretty straightforward, Bill. This allows us to take the next step and uh the evolution of uh
using the data within our state to make sure it's done. Uh, my, my ultimate dream is that to one day that we will have a website uh where citizens can go to and from that one single portal, the citizen can do all their interactions with state governments. So, for example, if I move, I go to that one website, I my address all of state government gets it and while I'm there it says, hey, by the way, uh, it's time to renew your business license, your hunter's
register, so it's all done from one portal, and this is the next step and to
help make that dream a reality. So, uh, with
that, we close and I'll make a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Saying none, uh, We have a motion on the table.
Although the fibers say I opposed. Congratulations to make you pasture. Uh, 1548. Thank you.
Uh, could be all right. Next up will be HB 1604. Uh
Speaker 134
31:31
Representative Mc you recognized to prevent your
identify yourself with the committee and go ahead and present your bill.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
31:42
you committee. Representative Mindy McAlinden has District 10. Excuse me, so I'm here today to
Representative Mindy
Unverified
31:48
present a real uh short bill.
Basically, it is um preventing the use of public funds to purchase promotional items made in China. Uh, the purpose of the bill is to be sure that we are spending public funds in ways that align with Arkansas and American values. Um, it can support Representatives for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
32:16
our purpose, uh, parliamentary inquiry. What inquiry. So this was 1604, I don't believe it was on the
list of bills that we were sent out that we're going to
be on the agenda. I'll just be honest with you, I haven't prepared to read this bill because it wasn't on our list unless I missed something. I'm let
me take a look at that to verify that. And also, I mean, to the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
32:49
extent that's been communicated to people in the public who might want to speak for or against,
they weren't able to have notice of that. My apologies, this was not on the communicated on the list of the bills for today. So I'm gonna have to ask you to come back another day. OK, thank you, Chairman. Thanks
for that catch. First of all, do you have a question? Yes, parliamentary inquiry. But your inquiry to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
33:29
Representative Collins' point, uh, for the public as well. Are we only able to hear Bills in committee that are
communicated to us by email or text or is it based on the agenda that's listed online. It's a good question because I think there's some that are on the agenda, but maybe we weren't communicated beforehand privately, is there, is
there A discernment between those two.
Well, looking at the list that as as your repair, I do not know the chairman prepared a list of the bills that should be hard and I so I'm going down that list and I don't know. I, I think it's probably more that that they were communicated to the
individuals to make sure that they were here out
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
34:17
of courtesy for them, but And I appreciate that. I guess my question would be, uh, I think it was Monday,
I may have uh received a communication that my bill would be heard, possibly in committee, but it wasn't on our, our list that we were
communicated by the chair. Uh, so I'm just trying to figure out which one we should, we should go by to
Representative Collins Point. The chair typically as we all know, puts out a list to make sure that we're prepared and to hear and have read all the documents that we have because we have a, we have a large agenda so that that's the purpose of their list is that we're prepared to ask the questions, uh, for the committee since it wasn't on that list and and people weren't prepared, the committee, I don't know that
everybody in the committee is prepared to hear this. I elected pass over until the committee would know that it would be on the
Speaker 153
35:08
agenda for them to be prepared. I clearly defer to the
chair. Thank you for the Clarity. Alright, Nick. Uh Next up we'll have a House Bill 1410. Representative Wager.
Committee before we hear this bill. Uh, there's an amendment on the desk that we need to expunge before we can hear the spell. I have a motion to expunge. Have a much to explain from Representative McIlroy. All those in favor say aye. And a pause.
The eyes have it. Go ahead and present your bill.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
36:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee, uh, Representative Steve Unger, District 19, House Bill 1410 adds to the list of prohibited activities from a public servant basically the short version is, uh, don't give a heads up about what should be a surprise inspection. The new and improved paragraph D. Is really the meat of this. Um, that the committee had asked.
For a better and new and improved language, and
I believe this is it. Other any questions of the committee? Uh war
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
37:03
law. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you kind of walk me through what your changes are and how that practically will work.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
37:13
Representative, I will certainly try. So where's the, the Doctor Seuss version of this is the surprise inspection should be a surprise inspection. It turns out you can't really. Word it that simply. Uh, to make it work. And so If you just read the text, uh. He kind of sows a a tighter net around prohibitive activities.
But also leaves roof for whatever might happen to get ready for an inspection. Representative Wardlaw, do you
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
38:08
have a follow up? Not at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Clowney.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
38:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Unger, um, Is it your experience that you brought this bill to us. It was a little bit broad. It targeted way more people than you intended and then the committee was comfortable with and so we worked on this language, um, with a number of folks to kind of narrowly tailor
it to address um public officials interfering in public investigations. Yes, thank you, uh, sometimes it
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
38:41
does take a village to raise a
child and sometimes it takes a room full of smart people to help people like me write tight
legal language. I see no other Um Questions from the committee, uh. Are there any, is there anyone speaking for or against? Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak on this bill. Saying none, uh, are you, uh, prepared to close for your bill? I am closed for my bill. Uh
I have a motion to pass by Representative Hawk. All right, all the favor say aye. And he oppose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you committee. I shut my microphone off. I have to say it into the microphone. You've passed your bill. Alright. Next up we have House Bill 1607. Representative Rose.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
40:01
Please identify except for the committee and you good to go. Thank you, Mr. Sher. Thank you committee. Presenting House Bill 1607, which is establishing the office of Outdoor recreation and Law. As all of you know, outdoor recreation is a major economic driver in our state and recognizing it's, it's importance, this bill will codify the office of Outdoor recreation within the division of tourism in the Arkansas
Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism. The office of Outdoor recreation was originally created by executive order in 2021 to harness the economic potential of outdoor activities. Uh, at that time. Uh, recreational, uh, excuse me, outdoor recreational activities contributed $887 billion annually nationwide and created over $7 million. Here in Arkansas, tourism is our 2nd largest industry and it
creates about $10 billion in consumer spending annually and outdoor recreation contributes about 7.3 billion to the Arkansas GDP and directly contributes 68,000 jobs within our state. So this bill's uh solidifies his office into law. And it ensures its continued role in coordinating and supporting outdoor recreation programs that drive the Arkansas economy and enhance the quality
of life for our residents and
our visitors, and I'm open to any
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:44
questions at this time. to make you recognize for question. Thank you, Mr. So how, how would
this, uh, be different than the current secretary who's already responsible for the tourism, promoting parks,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
41:55
things like that. That's, no, that's a good question. Thank you, Representative Meeks. So we still would have
a secretary, uh, for AD PhD. This is simply
codifying in the law a director of outdoor recreation. Uh,
this was created through executive order and what this does is Codifies it into law, so there's no new spending. It doesn't expand the government. We actually already have a director in this position, uh, but executive orders can come and go, seeing as how this is the 2nd biggest industry in our state seems important uh as an economic driver just to
make sure that there's stability moving forward as tourism is growing
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
42:32
in our state. Oh, no doubt, no doubt, but can you
give us a, uh, just a brief synopsis of the duties of the individual who's employed in
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
42:40
this role. I would like to, but I think It would be best
if I actually had that person come to the table, uh, Katherine Andrews is our outdoor recreation director and uh with your permission, Mr.
Chair, I'd like to have her come and testify to that. Please identify
Speaker 182
42:55
yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Good morning, Katherine Andrews, director of the Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation. um, I have been in this role since since its inception, um, in 2021, so we're going into our
fourth year of the Office of Outdoor recreation, uh, we've really hit our strides. So the first couple of years were really establishing the main goals, priorities of the office. Now we're, we're Really spearheading a lot of big projects. So there are two main partners in the state that we serve. Number one is our industry, bike shops, boat manufacturers, guides, outfitters, duck lodges, making sure that those companies are connected to resources to grow within the state. And then our other is our communities, mayors, county
judges, elected officials, cities, towns all across Arkansas, making sure that they are also connected to grants or other resources to build more outdoor recreation access in their local communities. Colling you're recognized for
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:58
Uh, so, Representative Rose, I mean, obviously no issue with the functions here, but this already exists. We're just putting it in code. It seems like it's gonna reduce
flexibility if there's anything that wants to be changed in the future, you'd have to actually go back and pass another bill and we're just um creating more code which does seem like maybe more government. What would you say
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
44:22
to that? Thanks for the question. Uh, can you
hear me all right? Yeah, thanks for the question. I appreciate it. Uh, I would, I would say it doesn't grow government. We have this position already, uh, it's already inside the budget, uh, it codifies the role in, in my opinion, I believe the
department's opinion as well to ensure stability and efficiency. It'll streamline government and I think all it'll do, we'll just continue the momentum that we're building and increasing with tourism in the state. I appreciate the question. We may have a disagreement on methodology, but OK, and just to follow up
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
44:55
as a practical matter, the, the department could create and remove offices like this at any time under current law without it being in code, is that right? So if you look at the bill, uh,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
45:13
Page 2, line 5. It says
the secretary may employ a director of outdoor recreation, and then it goes on throughout. With if they choose to do so, then there are shells for the specifics of what that would entail, but they are not mandatorily
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:30
required to have that position. I'm sorry, just to clarify, I mean in the absence of this bill passing just under current
law, the secretary can create, you know, sub entities within the department at any time. So uh
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
45:45
thank you for the question. I can't speak to every position they could or couldn't hire. This one was from a 2021 executive order and so they're operating under those guidelines, to my knowledge and under you know, understanding on this. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Are the other questions? From the committee. Representative Roger. to close for you, Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's how well for just a second. I keep forgetting this. There's no one signed up. Anyone
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
46:24
here would like to speak for against the bill. Now, please close for your bell. Thank you. As we all know, Arkansas has, has become and is a premier destination for outdoor recreation. Uh, with tourism contributing billions of dollars to the state and our economy. Uh, I believe with this structured office, the state will build even more momentum and we'll see increased economic opportunities for
outdoor tourism. This bill ensures stability, efficiency, and long-term investment in outdoor recreation, all while operating within existing resources, so HB 1607 strengthens our economy, protects our natural resources and expands recreational. opportunities for future generations. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I make a motion to pass. Can we have a motion to pass is there any
discussion on the motion? Saying none, all those in favor say aye. All those polls.
Congratulations Representatives, you've passed your bill. Uh, next up we're gonna hear 1608.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
47:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Ryan Rose, uh, District 48, Van Buren and
Fort Smith. House Bill 1608 has to do with protecting Arkansas, Arkansas's historical records and public records are vital to preserving
our history and our governance. These documents capture legal decisions, community developments, and the day to day activities of government, uh, they serve as valuable resources for researchers, historians, and future generations. Uh, I, I believe that this bill is a targeted update at Arkansas law that protects historically significant records while allowing for modernization and record keeping. Under current law, no handwritten document uh from our government over 50 years old can
be destroyed regardless of its relevance or historical value. What this bill does is it introduces a structured review process that ensures historically valuable records are preserved while allowing for the responsible disposal of nonessential documents and by requiring the Arkansas State Archives approving all of these
before anything is destroyed. Um, it, it just establishes a a a important safeguard to protect anything that's historical. HB
1608 strikes a balance between historical preservation and also
efficient record management at this time I'd be open to any questions. Uh Representative Wright. Thank
Representative David Ray
Unverified
49:08
you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. I, I assume that this, this looks like an agency bill. Is this from the state archives or yeah, through the Department of Heritage Department of Heritage. OK, thank you. Are
there any other uh representative Collins you recognize her question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So um I understand sort of the concept with some of these older uh documents they want to be able to destroy um but the way this is written, um. Things that are determined to be of historical value may still be destroyed if they're less than 50 years old, so, uh, is the idea that we're not going to retain any more of these uh historically valuable items if they're less than 50 years old. That's a good, it's a good
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
49:58
question. I think that the 50 year mark was just kind of something that was established already in law, if you see that it's not structure underlying language, uh, more or less what it is stating is that anything at 50 years cannot be destroyed without going through this review process. And the Arkansas State Archives is already in existence and they will be the ones directly overseeing any documents being destroyed. Well, it does, it does
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
50:21
a very different thing, as you know, because it changes that war to in hand and so it used to be that either one would be a
trigger to keep the original and now with it being a compound requirement, it has to be both 50 years old and of historical value, so now if it's less than 50 years old, um. It and of historical value, it may be destroyed and I, if that's the intent of the archives, I'll defer to their wisdom in this. I just want to make sure that I guess ask why that would be
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
50:56
desired. Well, I, I appreciate the question. I believe that it is
combining the 2, 50 years old and historical value, um, I, I don't believe that this is saying we're going to destroy things that are younger than 50 years old. I think it's just saying once they've hit 50 years old and we're now seeing that they have
the historical value combining the two, not separating the two. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Seeing no other
questions, uh, there's no one has signed up to speak for against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak. On the bill.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
51:34
Saying no you recognize the clause for your
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe this bill provides a reasonable reasonable safeguard that ensures that uh our state does not unknowingly discard
valuable pieces of history and uh I'm close to my bill, appreciate a good vote. Make a motion to
pass. OK, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Saying none, all those in favor say aye. pose. Uh, congratulations,
Representative Ros you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. And committee I'm going to have to back us up a little bit because I, I made a mistake. I found out uh as uh representative Collins inquiry about it not being on our list. We can proceed to hear this bill if the majority of the committee agrees to do that. There are members from the public here to speak on this bill. So what I would ask you to do is, could I get a motion from the committee,
or do I need a motion from them so. What I'm asking is this this OK. So how Bill on House Bill 1604. It was not on the list to to be on today, but since there are people here to speak on the bill, uh, if the majority of the committee agrees to hear the bill, we can hear the bill. So my Represented Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
53:06
I don't know if anybody else received the email, but I didn't receive. The typical email that we usually get saying what's going to be coming up today. So I was just going about the agenda. That's one thing that I had and it was updated 8 o'clock. Alright, I just told us a text message. I'm sorry, I don't always
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
53:26
check my text. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Wartlaw. Ja just point of inquiry there. The rules say the bills on the agenda, it's legal to run the bill. The bill's on the agenda
and was posted in the 24 hour notice established by the rulebook. So there's, I'll make a motion, but there's no reason for a motion when the
bill is on the agenda previously. The request was made that since people didn't, it wasn't on the list that was sent out and some representatives may not be prepared for the bill as far as reading it and everything, so, so that's why we, I, I pulled it down. That's why I pulled it, pulled it down, but at this point, if
the majority of the committee wants to hear this bill, I'm gonna let it go ahead. Now with that, um, Church Collins, did you? Crawford, I'm sorry. No, you didn't have a question, uh, Representative Rose, uh, yes sir.
Speaker 198
54:22
What's the proper motion so that we could hear the bill? I'm just not sure
what the motion actually is. I'm just going to ask for a simple vote as
Speaker 155
54:31
far as does the committee want to hear the
bill? Right. So I'm just asking for the committees.
Input on this. Do y'all want to hear the bill or not, I don't need a motion on it. So, so we're gonna vote as to whether or not we're gonna hear that 1604 House Bill 1604. So all those in favor say aye. Any
oppos? Alright, then we're gonna back up. Representative Mcley, you're, you're, you're the. 16 House Bill 1604. Thank you committee.
Representative Mindy
Unverified
55:10
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee for hearing the bill today. Uh, my name is Representative Mindy McAlinden. I am from House District 10 in Northwest Arkansas. Uh, this is a really straightforward bill. What it says is that um Arkansas state agencies will be prohibited from using public funds to purchase promotional materials made in China, and the real purpose or the need for this bill is that it ensures that public funds are being spent in a way that are in line with Arkansas values and American values. Um, the only person impacted by this
be the state agencies and in terms of a fiscal impact, there's about $200,000 right now spent every year on promotional materials. Those materials, if they're sourced through China, will have to be sourced elsewhere. And you can source them in America, or you can source them in allied nations, and there should be enough other places like Taiwan. where you can uh source materials at a comparable price, so I don't see an impact on state agencies. And with that, I'll take any questions. Representative Ra.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
56:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So a lot of times when, when you order promotional materials. It doesn't really say. Where they come from or If it does, you'd have to do some digging. I mean, how, how are people supposed how are agencies supposed to know if they're ordering from a vendor, are they gonna have to be required to
You would ask the location before they order some cheap plastic trinket or how does this
Representative Mindy
Unverified
56:45
work? You would ask your vendor, and most of them I have the list of all the promotional items that were purchased last year and as I went through them, most of them were purchased through a vendor, so it would be possible to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
57:00
ask the vendor, and that would be on the vendor to let you know that. OK. What, what happens? What happens if someone does. Accidentally order something that came from China. What would, what would happen in that
Representative Mindy
Unverified
57:09
instance? I'm just looking real quick. There's actually not a um There's not a
cause of action associated by that. So that would go, I guess up through the executive branch. Some sort of reprimand, perhaps. OK, thank you. Yeah. Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:30
Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our promotional items defined in code somewhere. You know, I did
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
57:35
not see that defined in code. Um, it's not defined in my bill, but it would typically
Representative Mindy
Unverified
57:40
be items that are used to promote the state agencies. So if I'm buying pins, hats, t-shirts to give away or to
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
57:49
promote, um, my department, that would be what it is. It
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:54
would not include uniforms and those kinds of things. Well, I, I guess I just
have trouble understanding what promotional items are in the absence of a definition, and what about, and this is sort of on uh Representative Ra's question, but what about uh a component of a promotional item. What if something, you know, does it matter if the Items used to produce the promotional item were sourced from China. I think the intent of the bill
Representative Mindy
Unverified
58:19
is to say that we would prefer to have promotional items purchased in America or in allied nations and not in one of our adversaries like the CCP and I think that's pretty clear in the, in the purpose of the bill. I don't think we have to get down to where every individual component was sourced from, but I think if the item is final. Final composition is in the CCP, then that would not be an item that we would want our state agencies using Arkansas hard-earned dollars to purchase. Well, I mean that may be. I'm
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
58:50
just trying to understand since it's not specified here what the intent is on some of these things and particularly with the definition of promotional items, um, that leaves me just. A little unclear about what that is, but I appreciate the response. Thank
you. Representative Betty, who recognize for a question. Thank you,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
59:10
Mr. Chair Representative, is there, is there a reason why we didn't put some teeth in this bill, something that, that basically.
Um, holds the um the agency's accountable for Disregarding the wishes of the legislature should this be passed. So it
Representative Mindy
Unverified
59:27
is a very small dollar item, um, and it is something that is very easy to comply with, but I don't think it was necessary, or at least I didn't think it was necessary to have punishment assigned. I think if you're violating that, then that would be up to management
to take care of. OK, thank you. Seeing no other uh out.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
59:52
I Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, to your last statement, it would be up to management because there's no teeth really in the bill. What would provent them, I guess from just not allowing to buy these from there now. Um, well,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:00:06
you'd be breaking the law, uh, but there's no teeth in the bill to stop them from
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:00:12
doing that. So currently it would be against the law for the executive branch to tell the agencies not to buy a promotional items
Representative Mindy
Unverified
1:00:19
from China. No, it's a, if this passes, it
would be against the law to purchase promotional items made
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:00:24
in China. My question is, why do we need this law? They already have the ability to tell agencies not to
Representative Mindy
Unverified
1:00:29
do that. They do have the ability to tell agencies not to do that, but sometimes when you put things in law, it just gives a little
more oomph to what you're saying. OK Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, seeing no other questions from the committee, uh, but there was
there's some people want to speak for against the bill.
Chandra Hendren
Unverified
1:01:03
identify yourself. And Uh Um, thank you. My name is Chandra Hendren, and I represent Heritage Action for America, a grassroots organization with over 2 million grassroots activists nationwide, including many Arkansans. Heritage Action urges members of the House committee uh to support HB 1604, the United States is in a new Cold War with the People's Republic of PRC led by and
controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. For years America believed it could change China by engaging with them, but over the last decade it has become clear that that was the wrong bet. China has had grown richer and more aggressive. The CCP is the supreme authority in China. It operates under a civil-military fusion emerging civilian and military power as a comprehensive weapon to no influence, exploit, and defeat an enemy. The threat of the CCP should be met with decidedly, and we must recognize the relationship for what it is. China is an adversary and the
CCP threatens America's jobs, national security, critical infrastructure, data, and technology, and farmland and agriculture, aged be 16. for is a common sense measure to safeguard Arkansas's interests by prohibiting state agencies from spending public funds to purchase promotional items made in the People's Republic of China, Heritage Jackson, or you to support 1604. Thank you for your time. It Will you take questions? Arnie. Any questions?
Committee. All right, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak against the bill. You want to speak for the bell? Saying no other. Representative Collins. Is there a fiscal impact statement on this
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:02:44
bill. There is no fiscal impact on this bill. I would request a fiscal impact statement on this bill. OK. on right.
All right, well, um, we'll pull your bill down at this point and get a physical impact on it and bring it back. Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much.
All right, members, it looks like the next bill we have on our agenda is House Bill 1614, Representative Lundstrom. You're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:05:07
Chairman Gasway. I do have one guest, um, for a reference, if I could invite her to come to the end.
Speaker 234
1:05:25
State Representative Robin Lundstrom, District 18. Monte Ballard, Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault executive director.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:05:37
You're recognized. Thank you, Chairman Gasway. This bill has two components. It simply adds one representative to the um board the the grant advisory board that reviews all of the information on grants in Arkansas and what it actually does and the most important part of the bill is on page 4. It's where the board comes and
presents a report on how the money is spent in the state of Arkansas and what entities should receive in their recommendations for grants and it comes to the state agencies, both House and Senate. For a report. Currently there isn't a reporting mechanism and this just allows some eyes on it and some citizens and state representatives and state
senators to see what good things are happening in the state of Arkansas, but also have
a reporting component. All right, Representative Lundstrom has explained the bill, uh, ma'am, do you have any
comments you'd like to make, Ms. Ballard? I'll take questions. Are there any questions about the committee,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:06:38
Representative Meeks you're recognized. Thank you and uh thank you Representative Lun for for bringing the bill. Uh, I, I don't have any, any concerns with the bill itself. My, my only question is, is it says that um it's a quarter quarterly report to this agent to, to this committee and so that means every 3 months there's gonna have to be a report prepared and
uh being a representative, you understand how much stuff we get dumped on us all the time and so I'm wondering if it might be better served to make that maybe an annual. report so that way the, you know, the granting agencies not having to constantly produce a report every 3 months to send reports to us that, you know, chances are we're gonna look at for 3 seconds and then, you know, move on to the next thing, whereas an annual report, I think, would have,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:25
you know, I think that's a very useful
suggestion, um. But I don't mind changing that and coming back or
changing that on the Senate side and coming back. That's, that's a very useful suggestion. Thank you. Representative
Clowney, you're recognized. OK. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, do we have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill, seeing no one signed to speak for against the bill. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized a close for your bill.s, I would ask for
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:54
a good vote. I recognize we're under a timeline. Thank you.
All right, Representative Lindstrom has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative Hogg. See a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Abbott, congratulations, Representative Lundstrom, you passed your bill. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. All right, next we have, uh, we'll begin the Senate bills.
of Underwood, are you prepared to go forward on Senate Bill 209 and 210. Yeah, I'll run it. And let me just, if you're not, we have.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:08:49
Other Senate bills we can move to. Yes, uh, I don't know if Hammer's gonna let me wait and see if Hammer's gonna come. So I'll pass the for now.
Well, he's on 4 of the other ones too. Um, all right, well, we have one other Senate Bill 188. Representative Ray, are you prepared?
Unknown speaker
1:09:08
Go forward. All right, you're recognized. Representative Ray, you're
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:09:40
recognized. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate
Bill 188 is uh Bill. I agreed to help Senator Tucker with, believe it or not. Um So this is, this is basically um a fairly simple bill that I think would just make the initiative process a little bit more transparent to folks who are trying to learn about the items that may end up being on the ballot, so after a ballot measure has been approved by the Attorney General within 5 days
of starting to gather signatures, the ballot measure sponsor has to submit that that ballot measure language, the ballot title, the popular title in the AG. certification letter to the Secretary of State's office so that they can put that information up on the website where folks can find it. Um The Secretary of State has the ability to remove the language, um, either after the election is over. Um, or if the ballot measure is
kicked off by a court and there's a and that and that that is a final order, uh, or they can remove it if the ballot measure fails to get the requisite number of signatures or um If the SOS independently determines that the language uh that they've been provided is inaccurate or not being circulated for signatures. Uh, if the ballot measure sponsor does not submit the language, then the Secretary of State can put the language up on the website on their own by getting it from the attorney General's office.
There's no penalty for a ballot measure sponsor and not submitting the language to the Secretary of State, this is really not a punitive thing. Uh, it's just meant to get more information out to people who want to know what's what measures are being circulated, um, what it is they're being asked to sign just so that they'll have as much information as possible. The Secretary of State's office, um, has reviewed the bill and they don't see, they have no objections to doing this and uh.
That's pretty much a summary of the bill. We'd be happy to try and answer
any questions if there are any. Representative Ray has explained the bill. Are there any
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:11:57
questions about the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, we do have one person signed up to speak against the
Speaker 248
1:12:03
bill. Kwami Abdul Bay. Oh no Mr. Bay. All right, well, it
says against, but you're certainly recognized to speak for it. I love this. This is. Great to see.
Speaker 80
1:12:16
You're recognized, sir. Yes, Kwame Abdulbay, the elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. Uh, I like this bill. I just would like to, uh, first of all say that. Uh, we're already required to submit. Language to the Secretary of State's office by law, so, uh, you don't have to worry about people not submitting it, but what I would like to see is an amendment to the bill where the
language uh is capped in this database with the Secretary of State's office instead of you said that it could be taken down, uh, I would like that to be a permanent record, uh, so that we could have an uh the state can have an archive of uh direct. Democracy, so that's, that's what I would like uh for it to be amended uh for that to happen. Other than that Vote for it. All right.
Any questions? Any questions about the committee? Saying none, thank you very much for those comments, seeing no one else sign up to speak for or against
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:13:30
the bill. Representative Ray, you're recognized to close for your bill. Sure, just um to touch on the points that were just made, you know, all of these, uh, all of these ballot titles and things that are approved they're, they're, they're public documents. I'm, I'm sure that they're going to be preserved somewhere, um, and I think if, I think if everyone on this committee that just took a
picture of uh what just happened, votes for this bill. I think we can be assured of its passage and with that I'm closed for the bill. Representative
Speaker 249
1:14:00
Ray has Clothes for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I, I moved and he
moves to pass. We have a motion to pass. All those in favor say I actually, no, there's, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing down
all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, as have it congratulations. The bill's passed. All right.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:14:38
Representative Rye, you're here to present a bill. Senate Bill 295.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:15:03
You're recognized. Yes, sir. Representative Rye. Always good to see you, sir. You
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:15:10
too, uh, Mr. Chairman, have a bill that's not a real long bill at all, but I think it's an important bill, sir. Um, it's dealing with. Monies that go through uh. Uh, election phase. And at the present time, The general operations is the actually the only fund that's being used. But the monitors that are being used inside of our polling sites are, are growing year by year
and we are spending more money each year for that. And we have 3 funds instead of 1 fund and ah Mr. Chris Madison, uh, director of Election, uh, election board of of commissioners is here to explain this fully. Mr.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:15:55
Madison, if you would identify yourself and any organization you're here representing, you're
Recognized to assist Representative Ryan presenting the bill. Thank you. This is an agency bill. My
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:16:06
name is Chris Madison. I'm the director for the State Board of Election
commissioners and as you may or may not be aware, the state board appoints monitors to observe elections and historically we have waited until we've received requests from out in the field to deploy monitors and in prior years we would send 2 maybe 3 monitors out. This last election cycle, we took a more forward-leaning approach and actually identified counties ahead of. times that could use monitoring, um, which, you know, happens across the state, and they, there were some good counties and there's some counties that are, you know, used in monitoring and during the general election, for example,
we had 60, uh, I went back and counted we had a monitor at some place 60 different times throughout the election, whether it be a monitor or a staff person. Now some of those were the same places over and over again to keep an eye on it and one of the things we did, for example, that's good from that is when someone call and complain about an issue or a concern. pole. I actually had this call and I said, did you see the red-headed woman sitting in the corner and they said, yes. I said, well, that was our state monitor, so we're aware of it and we're paying attention to it. What this is looking to do is to move the cost of the monitors for monitoring
elections out of our general operations fund and move it over into our elections account fund. We have basically 3 accounts that we pay our bills from. We have a general revenue that pays about 9, 9.5 months of our annual operating expenses. We rely on judicial filing fee fund to make up the difference of that. And then we have. Our elections account fund, which is used to pay for training, reimbursements, and uh the reimbursements County training and our online things for training and I'm looking to move this cost out of our general operations over into the elections account because it's
directly associated with elections and with that, I'm happy
to answer any questions. All right, thank you, Mr. Madison. Representative Bryan, do you have anything else? No, sir, that's, that's all. All right, Representative
Rise explain the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one signed up to speak for against the bill, Representative Rye, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closer. Representative Rys closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See Representative McIlroy, motion to pass.
All those in favor, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Thank you very much. Congratulations, Representative Rye, you passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:18:46
Mr. Chairman. All right, next we're gonna move to Senate bill.
308 Represent Representative Rose. My understanding is there's an amendment on
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:19:06
this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the, uh. The amendment is removing
representative Childress, uh, from the bill adding my name. There were some confusion uh in how his name actually got added
to the bill, and so I volunteered to
committee has a copy of the amendment. had an opportunity to review this extensive amendment. um one of the more controversial ones. I, I do
expect Representative Rose, you recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:19:47
Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, just uh a simple amendment added me as the
primary house sponsor uh for this bill, and I would appreciate a good vote, make a motion to pass. All right,
uh, Representative Rose has moved adoption of the amendment. What are the wishes of the committee. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. It was close, but the eyes have it. Representative Rose, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:20:17
you, Mr. Chair. SB 308 is uh as the chair would appreciate more or less a
technical correction. Cleaning up, uh, language slightly in the previous session, the legislature did away with uh write-in candidates, and there was some uh remaining language, uh, as you will see in the bill, I believe there are 6 words
right in that have been struck and so we simply corrected that and uh this bill removes those outdated references that ensures the consistency and accuracy in the election law at this time, I would take any questions. Representative Rose has
explained the bill. Any questions about the committee? Seeing no questions about the committee. Do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against this bill? Seeing no one sign to speak for or against the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:21:07
bill, Representative Rose, you're recognized to close for the bill as amended. Clothes for my bill and I would appreciate a good vote, make a motion to pass as amended, as amended,
yes sir. Representative Rose has made a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those
in favor say aye. All those opposed.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:21:27
Is Abbott, congratulations, Representative Rose, you passed your bill as amended. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to present SB 291, yes sir, you are recognized. Thank
you very much. Uh, is, is any of you turn there who are reviewing at Senate
Bill 291, having to deal with the election complaint deadline. So this is a common sense election integrity measure. Uh, it's been requested and approved by the nonpartisan Arkansas State Board of Election
commissioners. This bill will bring clarity and uniformity to election law, which will standardize deadlines in multiples of 7, such as a 49 day window for filing complaints both before and after an election, as well as 182 day deadline for resolving complaints. These structured time frames create. A clear and predictable process for election oversight and it ensures that every case is handled fairly. thoroughly. Importantly, there's
no known opposition and this reflects a broad support for its improvements to election administration. At this time I'd be open to any
questions, Mr. Chair. Representative Rose has explained the bill with any questions about the committee, Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:22:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, to, to clarify, I do think there was some opposition in the Senate, so I might start with that, but um, why is it that we are doing what's with the 7, why are all these dates being changed like
49 and 205 and 182. What, what's important about the seven, Mr. Cha, uh, uh, with your permission,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:23:07
I'd like to bring Chris Madison to the table. All
right, Mr. Madison, and as he makes his way, um, I'm gonna allow him to answer this as well, but with predictability in the 7 days is in terms of weeks now, so
there's no misunderstandings on particular days and how calendars fall and those kinds of things, but I'll let Mr. Madison explain this, uh, more in depthly. Mr.
Madison, since we've moved to a new bill, if you would identify yourself again who
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:23:32
you're representing, you're recognized. Yes sir, Mr. Chair, my name is Chris Madison. I'm the director for the State Board of Election commissioners, and this is an agency bill and ask your questions is a great question why multiples of 71 of the things we're looking at doing is migrating deadlines to multiples of 7. Elections are held on Tuesdays and we have a whole provision of law that talks about deadlines that follow on holidays or weekends have to carry over to the next day by doing multiples of 7, we get deadlines at. on the Tuesday, which there's not very many holidays that fall
on Tuesdays and so this is just one of the steps in doing that and providing clarity. Currently a complaint that's filed, you can file it 45 days before the election up to either 40 or 45 days after the election, depending on whether it's the primary or general this just sets clear deadlines front and back of the of the election and then the 182 and 245 is just to maintain that multiple weeks so that we know the complaint deadlines for everybody. To be completed by it sets clear deadlines.
Speaker 265
1:24:33
OK, um, did you say that it was 40 or 45 days after the election, so
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:24:40
currently depending on the election. In process, the law is 30 days after the date to certify the election. So after a primary, the date to certify the primary is 10 days after the election for the general election, it's 15 days, so the deadline to file complaints moves depending on which election it is. This is just saying 49 front and back and makes it real clear for
Speaker 266
1:25:04
citizens and for us to know when the complaint deadlines are. OK, thank you. Thank you for the
question, Representative. All right, any other questions by the committee, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:25:14
Chair, and I think that you just clarified this, but I just want to make sure I'm doing the math right. So currently after a general election, when you combine the certification date with the complaint date, you've got 45 days, right? This moves that to 49. That is correct. OK,
Speaker 254
1:25:27
so this actually gives more time for people to file complaints. All right, any other questions
by the committee? Seeing no further questions about the
committee. Do we have anyone signing to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:25:48
Representative Rose, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just to reiterate, uh, we believe this is reasonable and a practical improvement that institutes stability and predictability, uh, the multiple of seven structure eliminates arbitrary deadlines, making the system more transparent also and easy to enforce.
It reflects a bill that is intended to strengthen our election system while ensuring due process, transparency, and accountability.
I'd appreciate a good. close for my bill and I make a motion to pass. All right, Representative
Rose is closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. You have it, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. All right.
Next, we're gonna move to Senate Bill 294
Speaker 247
1:26:49
Representative Underwood, are you prepared on that one? All right. You may have some other ones after that, so. Representative
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:27:04
Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you Chair Ken Underwood District State Representative District 16. Um, so essentially what this bill
does is currently uh well what this bill does if you fail an audit in the current year, it automatically puts you on the
list for an audit the next cycle or or the next election, um, until you get a 100% audit and then you roll off. So currently the way this works is they do um a a random 15 uh draw, and so, uh, and if you're, if you're drawn and then you don't get a 100% audit, you would then be automatically put on the next one until you got 100%. And um have open to questions. I think Mr. Madison's here and, and I want to clarify this bill has nothing to do, even though me and Hammer is on the bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:27:48
This isn't has nothing, it's not related to the other bills that we've been running. All right. Representative Meeks, you're recognized, uh, just a, just a question. So after each election we've got the 15 that are chosen at random, um, if an audit comes up with a problem, then automatically next go around, that one's gonna be, is it gonna be one of the 15, or is it gonna be in addition to the so we'll have the 15 plus this one. That's correct,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:28:14
so it'd be in addition. OK, alright, thanks. Thanks for the clarification.
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Just kind of wondering about the frequency of not getting 100% on the audits. Can you tell me in the last maybe a couple of cycles, how many or maybe this is for Mr. Madison, um, but in the last couple of cycles, how many counties approximately have not gotten 100% on that. I'm
happy to let Mr. Madison, uh, elaborate,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:28:39
but I believe it's just one. Was in the last one, but I'll let, I'll let him respond. OK.
Speaker 266
1:28:51
Thank you for the question. So from the interrupt you, we're on a new bill
Speaker 263
1:28:55
and I got to identify yourself and who you're
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:28:57
representing. My name is Chris Madison. I'm director of the state Board of Election commissioners. Again, this is an agency bill. As to your specific question from the primary election audit, we identified one county that had had less than 100% accuracy, so they would have been selected, uh, and that's what really brought this issue to light. We're in the audit process from the general election currently and we're working through those and this is just. It's one of those things that if
you fail an audit you would expect to be audited the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:29:25
next time around and that's the purpose of
the bill. What county was that in the primary, uh, Cercy County, OK. OK. I, I guess my, my other question related to that is uh generally speaking, not just this past cycle, but is there 1 or 2 every time that doesn't get 100%. I just because I represent a large county and there's just more of everything happening, so I don't, I don't want to create
a situation where we're auditing our large
counties every single time just because it's impossible to or difficult
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:29:56
to hit this mark. So let me, can I give you a little bit of the history of how the audit processes work and that may help explain so uh in 2019, the bill was passed where we did a pilot program in 2020 that year we selected 5 counties just to see how the mechanics of it worked and the manpower in 2022, we just did the general election and in the 23 session we expanded it to include the primary, so the 24th cycle is the first time we've done both
the primary and the general and so of our audits, uh, we've had two prior issues of ballot handling. it was put in the wrong box, but the results were 100% accurate in the primary we had the one county that had some where they failed to count a ballot, I think 3 is what we identified 11 overall, um, so that failed. We're in the current audit process now and I actually have at least 2 counties that have had some ballot issues, uh, that we're working on addressing with some additional legislation to
address. So it's one of those things it's not every county, but if you don't have 100% accuracy. See in your results, then you should
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:31:02
expect to be audited again. I guess
I'll just ask this last one and, and maybe this answer will help me out. Have you noticed a difference in large counties versus small counties that large counties tend to have issues more or not. So actually what I generally find is
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:31:17
the large counties do a really good job. They handle a lot of ballots and a lot of voters and do a really good job,
um, the issue that I'm identifying and that we'll be coming back probably uh. is one that it's occurring in several counties. It's in a process that's manpower intensive, whether you're a small county or a big county, um, so it's one of those things that we wanna make sure they're doing it right, um, but what I have found is in big counties they generally do it right. I, I don't remember what district you're in or what county you represent, but, uh, most all of my big counties do a really good job and I work with them regularly. OK, thank you.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:31:59
All right, seeing uh Representative Long, you're recognized. you all bitching. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Y'all mentioned that um it would be uh automatically they would be done another audit the next election. So if they didn't get 100% like in the primary in the general would be the next
one and you know so on general would be the next primary until they get a
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:32:21
perfect scores, I guess that's correct. So our law is currently we audit the primary and the general election, so they would be up
for auditing in the next preferential primary uh
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:32:32
cycle. Yeah, and uh any county that uh doesn't pass, are you all doing any kind of remedial training with them to help them to do a better job the next time.
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:32:41
That would be part of it is identifying what
the hiccup was or what the issue was and working on either developing systems practices or training programs to address those issues. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All
right, any further questions about the committee? Seeing none
Thank you, uh. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:33:07
would just say, uh, as someone who lost their first election by 3 votes. I know how, uh, the slimmest of margins can decide an election, so I think it's important that we have 100% accuracy and I'm close to my bill and I'm making a motion to pass. Representative Underwood has made a
motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the
motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, as habit, congratulations, you've passed your bill. apologize there. I got distracted. I think. I understand that Representative Beatty, you have a bill that maybe you wanted to present today, is that right? Yes, Mr. Chair, uh, Senate Bill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:33:49
296, I believe staff said that had been transmitted down in the committee's willing to hear that, I would present it. All right, was there another bill?
Alright, Senate Bill 272, Representative Wooldridge. Were you wanting to present that today? I'll tell you what, we're, I'm just gonna tell you I think we're probably gonna have to come back this afternoon and those two bills were not sent out on the list of bills that I sent for the committee to review. If we do hear those bills today, it'll be this afternoon. And so the next two bills that we have are Senate bill.
209 and 210, Representative Underwood. You prepared to go forward and I'll just tell you we have a long list of individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill or these bills and I, it is uh 11, well after 11:30. Of course, we go into the House session at 1:30. And I'm sure members would like to. Break at least a little bit before that. So we may very well have to come
back this afternoon. So Representative Underwood, would you like to
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:35:10
present those bills now? at an hour in the afternoon, are you
asking for? I mean, I, I suppose I'll give you the option. My opinion would be we should start them now. Um, we do have people here and I don't know how quickly they'll go, but uh let's My Preference would be that we go ahead and start the bills now and with the understanding that we're likely gonna have to come back this afternoon. discussion on that.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:35:44
Representative Collins, are recognized. Well, I just wanted to observe there's another committee meeting at noon that some of the members of this committee
are on. I'm not speaking for them. I'm not on
it, but rules is at noon. OK. Well, that may be a good time to break then, uh, Representative Wooldridge,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:36:03
I just wanted to let you know, Mr. Chair, and the committee that I am prepared to present 272 if that's something you'd like to do
before we break. My feeling about that is since
the committee had no advance notice that we were going to consider that today. Now the committee's on notice. We're gonna come back this afternoon anyway, but if we do that, let's do that this afternoon. Representative Rose. Sorry
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:28
about that. um. Were you saying that because the rules is at noon that we may dismiss at noon for the day or for the for the morning. Well, that's,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:36:36
that's an option. I don't know that I've made a firm decision on that. Do you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:40
have strong feelings one way or the other. I wouldn't be in favor of that, but I'm just
I do think that we need to break uh before the 1:30 session to give members some time to. Uh, grab a little something to eat anyway, um, before we get started there, so that would be my preference, but it doesn't
Speaker 247
1:36:58
have to be at noon, so. They have strong feelings about that one
Speaker 289
1:37:03
way or the other, I'm I defer to Representative Underwood on getting his
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:37:09
bill heard. Representative Beatty. Mr. Chair, just to request, um, Uh, to maybe forego some of the issues we had last time, mainly
by multiple points of order, uh, just, uh, a, a request from the chair and I and I don't know if this is uh proper procedure or not, but could we allow Representative Underwood to present both bills, then when we did not take a vote or a motion, then go to public comment and allow the, the folks that are here that wish to speak for or against that way they could speak for both bills and then have the representative come back close to Bill, and we take a vote. And that way they get one bite at the apple and they can say anything they want to say during
that time period and um and maybe help expedite the process um that would be my request
to the chair. All right, thank you, Representative Beatty, and I think that's a fair point. The reason we didn't do that last time is because I heard so much criticism for the way that they did it in the Senate and the way we typically handle bills in the houses. Each bill stands or falls on its own merit, and I didn't want to be debating 3 bills at the same time, uh, because that was confusing to people in the Senate, and I heard a lot of criticism, of course, as most things go around here when you do the opposite thing, then you
get criticized for the other reason. So then when I say that we're gonna hear all these bills individually and they're gonna stand or fall on their own merit. The criticism was, why can't we hear all these at one time? We have all these objections we want to make. We should have heard them all at one time. Well, they had the there was the opposite criticism when they did it the other way in the Senate. So I don't know
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:38:40
that there's a right or wrong way, but Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Well, I, I just want to make very clear in no way, shape, form or fashion was my request to criticism of the chair of the
ruling. I, I just think that it would expedite the process here with just two bills and, and keep us on task so I'd, I'd still, I'd still like the chair to consider that
request, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you for that, and I, I appreciate that. I'm being told by staff that the only real proper way is to hear each bill individually. Now that doesn't mean that we can't reserve a vote. And let the discussion begin and let them speak on both bills after there's been a presentation of both bills and staff is checking on that right now, but anything that we can do
that expedites the process that makes it more efficient, um, I'm 100% in agreement with that. So let's make sure that we're not going to violate any, you know, protocols that we, we should follow
and if as long as we're not going to do that, then. Uh, I'm, I'm all for it. Is there any other discussion
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:39:39
on that, Representative Underwood. My only comment is that actually would appreciate not taking a vote right before lunch when everybody's hungry and cranky
and mad at me, um, so, uh, that'd be my request. Thanks.
Fair enough. All right. So we're gonna, uh, I have staff checking on the proper procedure to make sure that. We do this in order and so while staff is doing that, we're going to be in a brief recess.
Oh Committee's back in order. Representative Underwood, you're recognized on Senate Bill 209. Uh. Thank you, Chair. Um, I believe
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:47:11
Senator Hammer's here and then I also uh like to ask the Secretary of State's office, uh, come up and join me.
Speaker 298
1:47:35
Kim Hammer, State Senator District 16. Nathan
Speaker 300
1:47:40
Lee, Chief Counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. Leslie Bellamy, director of
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:47:48
elections, Arkansas Secretary of State. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Senate Bill 209 clarifies that signatures
obtained improperly or criminally are disqualified under this bill, um, a determination is made to disqualify the signatures based on a preponderance of the evidence standard or more likely
than not that the canvasser illegally or improperly obtained attained the signatures in procuring uh in procuring the signatures in the petition process. In short, This gives the Secretary of State office, uh, more ability in securing the petition validity and holds Secretary of State's office accountable for the determination. Um, in short, uh, some reasons to pass this bill. Uh, one, it holds canvassers accountable by acquiring that they follow the rules. It discourages one from engaging in proper in improper
activities like forgery and fraud and other dishonest acts, um, and procuring the signatures and it sets clear consequences for the misconduct. And also ensures that only valid signatures count toward uh ballot measures. Um, Senator Hammer, do you have anything additional? I think he captured it well, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry if I spoke quickly. I'm trying to make sure we get through as much as
possible before lunch. All right. Thank you, Representative Underwood. Uh, I should have announced earlier,
so let me just make this as a point of procedure, staff checked uh with the parliamentarian and each bill must stand or fall on its own, and we're going, so we're going to take these one at a time. There will be no combining of the bills, uh. And this is proper procedure per the House parliamentarian. So that is how we're going to uh move forward and so with that Representative Underwood has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Meeks.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:49:38
Thank you Mr. Chair, uh, just a question, is there any kind of appeals process, uh, so if the canvasser says that the, you know, they don't agree with the Secretary of State's finding, uh, and, and how would that how would
Speaker 299
1:49:53
that take place? Yes, Representative Meeks, we generally allow any kind of, uh, I guess you could
Speaker 301
1:49:58
say a cure on the things that we call right now, we allow for the sponsors to come in and have meetings. with us, we allow them to take
scans and come in and and do anything they want to how they, however they want to handle the calls and look at it and discuss with me and my staff, we have meetings with sponsors every time, and there are things we put back in and there are things that we don't feel like we can put back in and then they have the right, you know, to sue us to have them
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:50:30
put back in as well. OK. And then, um, do you not have the ability to do this currently. And how would this differ from what you're current because it
sounds like you can already call some of the ones out, but so how
Speaker 299
1:50:44
would this be different than what you're
Speaker 301
1:50:46
already doing. We would not be able currently to call the entire page. We could call a signature from the fraud, and we, but we could not call if we found out like a notary that is found to be fraudulent or not doing procedures right, we would call the entire page. Currently, we're not able to do that on what we find with the canvasser,
um, we would only be able to do the, the signatures that we found that the chemistry maybe let the wife sign or
the signatures all look the same. Alright, thank
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:51:23
you. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot of people down there. I guess this is for whoever wants to answer it, um. What, can you give me some examples of what types of um behavior, you know, you could foresee, uh, triggering an
enforcement of this of this measure like in in what instances would you?
Speaker 299
1:51:48
Use it hypothetically. Representative right, typically right now we would use it just for the same things that we found
Speaker 301
1:51:54
in coal right now. Uh, we would find it if there was transcription on the page, uh, we could call all of that canvassers, um, The pages that they had turned in, we could call all of those and then go through them page by
page, uh, transcription is probably one of the biggest things that we, we would do or if we found that there was anything fraudulent on their affidavits, we would pull all of their signatures, uh, and that would give us time to go through them and then we, we would allow the
Speaker 297
1:52:31
sponsor time to reply. And just to add to that representative Ray, um, you know, we have her testimony in
Speaker 298
1:52:37
other hearings about misrepresentation by the canvassers, um, and this bill focused on kind of
Activities by the canvasser, and that would be another example of something that if we could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that that was going on, it allows the call, um, ID verification would be another example, um, that would we'd be able to call. Given the authority from this bill, um, if we were able to prove it
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:53:08
by that standard. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so this is really a a pretty extraordinary proposal here, you
guys are effectively setting up a a judicial process that the Secretary of State will have to prove to itself the violation of an Arkansas law, including criminal laws, but there will be no judicial process. This is all going to be housed in the executive actually one executive, the Secretary of The So I want to ask about um how are the uh the people that are
being accused of violating an Arkansas law. How are they going to be have an opportunity to respond well, let me start with the presentation of the evidence, so how will the evidence be presented by the Secretary of State to
them for them to reply. Which we offer our criminal defendants and others accused of things, accused of violating law.
Speaker 298
1:54:09
Representative, there was, there was a lot in there. I would, I guess initially respond by saying that, you know, currently
the Secretary of State has authority to determine whether or not we're going to count signatures under the current Arkansas election law, um, that standard actually is ascertained, um, it's a pretty low threshold. This threshold would be higher than that, um, and then as director Belling was stating, you know, currently if we're gonna We're gonna say we're gonna throw out 30 signatures from somebody's petition, um, they have the opportunity to come talk to us about that, um, and, and we might add some back like
we had before, we might, uh, secretary in his or her discretion might say, you know, we're going to stick with our 30 or whatever the number is that we're gonna throw out and then at that point, um, The, the complainant uh or the plaintiff, I guess could then go to the Arkansas court system and have their day in court. Uh, we're not trying to change any criminal law, you know, we, we couldn't the, the standard for um charging and convicting someone criminally, of course,
is beyond a reasonable doubt. um, this doesn't have anything to do with us arresting somebody, uh, so that it doesn't. a criminal matter. Well, but
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:55:29
at the same time, you're talking about violating Arkansas laws regarding perjury, forgery, and fraudulent practices, and those are criminal laws, and you're right, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, but the standard here in this quasi-judicial process is preponderance of the evidence and so when you talk about preponderance of the evidence, that means that you are looking
at all the evidence and you say that 50 + 1 goes in this direction. The majority of the evidence goes in this direction. So how are you this is my original question, which didn't really get answered, how are you going to lay out the evidence? What is the process of discovery. What is the process of testimony that you're going to get the evidence out there to find what the preponderance is you can't find the preponderance of the evidence without knowing what the evidence is. So where does that
Speaker 298
1:56:17
process start? Well, it just, it's representative, it starts from
gathering the evidence and making a determination, looking at all the facts in front of us and then making a determination, is this uh does this meet the preponderance of the evidence standard and and that's at the would be at the discretion of the secretary, which again is higher than the current threshold on just throwing out an individual signature and then that determination we made, we could meet with um the person who the the sponsor or whomever might be affected by the signature being thrown out and
Uh, just make that case and present the evidence, um, and then we could go back and forth and then again eventually determination would be made and then as Director Bellamy said, they, they could sue
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:57:04
us if, if they felt like they should. So it sounds like you're saying that you won't really have a a process by which to ensure that someone can present their own evidence. It will only be evidence culled by the Secretary of State, uh, by whatever standard they, you know, determined to be appropriate and whatever they find without an
opportunity for the person they're accusing of violating an Arkansas law, whatever they find based on that preponderance will be determinative of whether or not they um Refuse to count the signatures. No representative.
Speaker 298
1:57:36
I disagree. I, I think they would uh they would have the opportunity to present evidence that would be exculpatory in nature and um show that uh the evidence actually that those signatures could be counted or that there
was no um violations made by canvasser and and that the secretary's office would would hear um those that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:58:00
evidence, so there's an opportunity for cross-examination and discovery and all that. Tell me about that process, if they're able to present their evidence. Well,
Speaker 298
1:58:09
this is just the beginning, we haven't promulgated rules as to how this would go into effect yet, but they're as it currently sits, they would have the opportunity to present evidence to us to sculpate themselves. Where is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:58:24
that laid out, sir? I'm just trying to understand because it seems to me like we have a prosecutor, judge and jury and executioner all in one. If I
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:58:31
could jump in here, I think that uh the answer to that is the Secretary of State's office gets to
make a determination based off of this preponderance of the evidence. standard, but if somebody disagrees, which I think was said, if somebody disagrees with their decision, they still have the opportunity to take that to the court system, take it to a special master, um, have their evidence laid out and then take that to the Supreme Court. So nothing about this bill takes away their their opportunity for due process in the judicial
Speaker 301
1:58:56
system. Yeah, absolutely. Representative Collins, I think to probably ease some of your concerns, uh, honestly right now what we do is if we were to see something, uh, and we've done it with notaries for sure if we're to see something concerning. learning that seems egregious. We've actually called the sponsor, uh, Josh Bridges my assistant director has called them and had them come in and we can show them what we found. It gives them time to respond to the allegations that possibly
we're making and we give them time to present reasons why that may have been done. Uh, and that's just the same type of scrutiny we're putting on the notaries with this would allow us that kind of scrutiny on the and then we would allow the sponsors to respond to whatever we found that the canvasser may or may
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:59:47
not have done. I appreciate it and I don't doubt your goodwill. I do think though that we're talking about a a alternative to a judicial process, the judicial process
very scrupulously ensures that parties have rights and they're able to reply and rebut, and there's evidence collected that then a court can make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence as presented, you guys don't have that here and we are just relying on your goodwill and that while you know it, I'm not saying it's that you would not make the right decision, but you know, there's other people in the future that we have to consider as
Speaker 299
2:00:23
well. And I think that they do still have that opportunity to use the
Speaker 301
2:00:29
judicial system. They don't have to accept our answer that we won't put those back in. They still have the opportunity to sue, and we have had to put signatures back in during my time. I was the director, uh, so I think they still have the sponsors would still have the opportunity. To
Speaker 299
2:00:47
provide their evidence as well as us in a
court. OK, thanks. OK, and so I have a question to Representative Collins' point. If someone disagrees with the determination made by the
Secretary of State's office. What is the
Speaker 301
2:01:03
process that follows. Generally, we'll sit down with them and have an initial meeting, uh, they've oftentimes will respond in a letter to us with their intent to to file a lawsuit or they'll come in like for what representative call says like discovery and they'll maybe take, they'll scan the entire petition on what we're working off of. So we allow them that time to get their evidence together, then we'll, we'll meet with them
as many times as they want. I think sponsors would testify to that that we've been, uh, really good, but about meeting with them, but I think too that If they prove their point, we'll just put them back in without having to go to court, but if we have to go to court, if we don't think that they're what they've provided back to us is right. We'll provide them a letter that we, you know, took it into consideration. We try to document everything as we go. OK, and I appreciate that. And
so it sounds like if I disagree with your determination. Uh, you're gonna have me in, we're going to review, uh, by evidence, if you will, my, my perspective about what's occurred. And then you guys will make a decision on that. I guess my point is, once that decision's been made, if I disagree with that, then what do I do? You sue me, chairman, and then what happens? The courts will decide which supreme. OK, and So is there a trial that takes
place in the Supreme Court because that would be a very uh that, you know, that's not really a Supreme Court's not a. At a trial court and so I'm guessing there's
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:02:40
a process for that Representative Underwood. Do you have something to add? Yes, thank you, Chairman Gassway
and Nathan might be able to to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they appoint a special master and then evidence is presented and then that special master makes a recommendation to the Arkansas Supreme
Court. And then the Supreme Court rules, I take it. That's correct.
Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions about the committee. We do have individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill. premises First person we have
signed up to speak against the bill is Jimmy Cabin. Mr. Cavin. If you would state your name in any organization you may be here
representing, you'll be recognized to speak against
Speaker 321
2:03:42
the bill. Hey guys, Jimmy Camp. I'm with Arkansas First News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. Uh, let me start by reading you the text of the bill. The Secretary of State shall not count signatures collected and witnessed by Caister if the Secretary of State. Fans by a preponderance of the evidence. That the canvasser has violated
Arkansas law regarding canvassing, perjury, forgery, or fraudulent practices in the procurement. A petition signatures or any provision of the Arkansas Constitution applicable to the collection of signatures on an initiative petition or referendum petition during the current election cycle. Now I'm gonna bring up points I brought up in the Senate Committee on Senate Bill 212 that Representative Collins has brought up, OK? Let's look at proponents of evidence.
The legal definition is a preponderance of evidence is that the standard by which most civil lawsuits in the US must be true. The standard requires the plaintiff, the Secretary of State. To prove based on evidence and witness testimony presented that there is greater than 50% likelihood that the defendant. Cause the damage or wrong. OK, uh, I'm gonna use a term that that uh Nathan from the
Secretary of State, who's a very nice young man, by the way, and it's a committee, he, he used the term 50% in a feather. So what we're gonna say is in the Secretary of State's opinion. Opinion that is 50% plus a feather likely. That a rule was violated. In their opinion, OK? And then what we're gonna do. Is we're, we're not gonna have any due process now. I
appreciate that Secretary of State's office is up here saying. OK, yeah, well, if that happens they can come to us and we'll talk about it and we'll give them the opportunity. And then, you know, if we agree with them, we'll put the signatures back on there. I just read you what's in the bill that's not in there. There's no appeal process in that bill whatsoever. So at that point, the Secretary of State. Says, I trust us. You can come to us and we'll talk to you about it. OK, who in this room, raise your
hand if you trust government. Anybody in this room that trust government, raise your hand. I don't. I just don't. So now you want me to trust you. Well, that's not gonna happen. And so that's why I wanna talk about the reality of this 50% plus a feather on someone's opinion. On someone's opinion. OK. Now, let's take, we talked about the canister and the sponsor. All right. Well, you say, well, sponsor they don't
like it, they can sue, OK? Alright, the camper doesn't like it. But what about me, the citizen who signed, you're gonna take away my signature. Senator Hammer rightly talked about the value of a signature when this whole thing started in the Senate committees and how valuable that signature is and his goal is to protect that signature. OK. This is not protecting my signature. If I sign a ballot initiative because I believe in that ballot initiative. And you take my signature away. You're not giving me any recourse.
You're not giving me any recourse as the signer. Because of, because the canvasser made a mistake on one signature, not mine. Let's say they make a mistake on one signature which is not mine. You're taking my signature away. You're taking my rights away. And I have no recourse on that. There's, there is no appeal process in this bill period, the end. If it was, wouldn't it be written in the bill? So you're saying, OK, we will
give you a price, OK? Well, what about designers process? Where did I go? If my signatures and negated to somebody from Secretary of State's called me and says, hey, your signature got uh deleted, so if you, we'll give you the opportunity to go sign a petition somewhere else. Does that happen? No, it does not. What this does is it takes a. Constitutional office. And gives it the power. To turn that office into a political weapon.
Because I'm a conservative. You don't get much more conservative than me. OK, but you're not always gonna have a conservative or, or uh a Republican in office, you're gonna have Democrats, you're gonna have different people of opinions. So it see it tease it up to me because the Secretary of State, if he doesn't like an amendment. He or she does not like amendment or is personally against it. Does this not tee this up to weaponize to say that, hey, 50% plus a feather in my opinion, those signatures don't count.
Is that not teeing it up for that? Of course it is. There's uh no due process, so my question again to uh to send her hammer and Representative Underwood. What about my rights on my signature? Where do I go? So if you say, OK, well, Jimmy, you know what, you can go sue. Well, sure, OK, all right, let me find an attorney and let me start with a $10,000 retainer. A $10,000 retainer on this. I don't have that. These people sitting out here don't have that, but you know
what? Now you telling me I can not only do you got to pay for your defense, but let's add salt to the wound. You gotta pay for their attorney. Government, my tax dollars go to pay to defend the Secretary of State's opinion. 50% plus a feather. So not only do I have to pay, Now my tax dollars gotta pay their attorney fees. So you tell me the average citizen, when you take away their signature, which we all agree is valuable, Senator Hammer made a big case about
that, and I agree with my signature has value. And you take my signature away and you don't give me an actual appeal process in law. Not just for the camera, sir, not just for the sponsor, but for me as a designer and you don't put an appeal process in law which is called due process. There is no due process in this in this bill whatsoever and I challenge anybody on this committee to tell me there is. There's no due process. So when you take my rights away like that and you leave me helpless
and you know what you do with my signature, then you know what the value of my signature is, then it's less than 0. Less than 0. So I know we got a lot of people to talk. I think I made my point and I would be very happy to answer any
questions. All right, Mr. Kevin, thank you very much for those remarks and any questions by the committee. All right, seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, Mr. Cavin. Thank you guys. Next we have signed up to speak. For the bill
John Gaskin
Unverified
2:10:57
Give me just a moment. John Gaskin. Um, excuse me, my name is John Gaskin. I'm representing myself. I had signed up to speak to both because that's how it was done at the previous time, but I'm really more concerned about SB 10 or 210, so may I We till then to speak.
OK, so I, I have you down as for SB 209 and SB 210, and I also have you down. When it says for or against,
John Gaskin
Unverified
2:11:35
I have you down as a 4. Are you gonna speak against these bills? No, I was gonna speak for SB 210. OK, but you don't want to speak on 209. What I would say would be the same for both. I just think it's more what I have to say pertains more to SB 210. OK. OK. I'll just leave that
to your, if that's what you prefer, that's fine. Alright, thank you.
Car. It looks like Uh, Mr. Gascon was the only person that I see signed up to speak for. This particular bill, everyone else is against, so. Next, we'll move to.
Mr. Joey, no. Yeah, Mr. Joey McCutchen. Thank you, Mr.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:12:30
Chairman, members of the committee, uh, my name is Joey McCutcheon, um, I'm here as
a citizen, uh, who values my rights and who values the rights of every citizen in the state. This is about power, no doubt about it, and one day that power pended on will swing to the other side and um conservatives like myself are going to wish we had the same rights that we currently have on this petition process, um, my opinion about who this hurts or are two people.
This hurts 22 people or groups. We're decimating this process because uh apparently special interests like marijuana, casinos, uh, state-run lotteries, um, but this bill doesn't hurt those people because they're just gonna pump in another million or 2 and they're gonna go out there and get those lost signatures. But more importantly, and Mr. Cavin talked about this, and most importantly, this hurts
everyday people. This hurts petitioners. So what are their due process rights when we, when we Boot the wrongdoer when we boot all these signatures, uh, that a wrongdoer has taken, uh, this phantom wrongdoer because let's not kid ourselves. There's been phantom, there's just we're hearing about phantom fraud here. Have we heard, have we got, has anyone talked about
prosecutions under all the laws that we have. There may be some miscon there may be some deception out there, but where are the prosecutions, so it hurts petitioners. So if I go up or Bubba goes up and Bubbas signs and then the wrongdoer, those signatures are booted. Is Bubba ever notified? Does Bubba, does Bubba Arkansan get get noticed that that his
signature is null and void. Shouldn't that be in this process? Shouldn't this bill spell out Senator Hammer? What Bubba's rights are because this is about the people regnant populace. Uh, secondly, we've heard about, we've heard about due process. Uh, what about the due process rights of the wrongdoer. But first of all, we've got plenty of process to take care of the wrongdoer. We've been hearing about it for several weeks now.
There are law after law after law to to punish the wrongdoer to criminally punish the wrongdoer. But, and then we've heard about the standard. I mean, why isn't a, why isn't a it may be a clear and convincing standard, um, you know, since, since we're gonna have is, is a representative Collins has talked about in essence, uh, we've got, we've got the Secretary of State, this all powerful person who's gonna
be the judge, the jury, um, how how fair is that? Due process is valid and, and why should we have to get guess about what the process is if there is a wrongdoer. Why isn't it in this bill, the appeal rights. Representative Underwood shouldn't have to say or isn't that true about the special master, uh, we should know or we we've heard we're gonna go in essence, go straight to the Supreme Court, um.
But, but it is about how much we value these individual people who are taking their time to sign a, a 4 year petition, for example, that we work tirelessly on the grassroots. That's who this hurts our grassroots petitions like the 2004, uh, marriage uh uh amendment, uh, that's who this is hurting because we will never see that again and I hope you, I hope you see that
we are, we Republicans are doing away with our rights and we will, we're gonna see marijuana, we're gonna see casinos, we're gonna see the power brokers from outside and they could care less. They're not here testifying, but the people are, um, I know we're on a time crunch. I appreciate you, um, for, for giving me the time to talk today, but we've got laws to punish the wrongdoer. Let's not punish. Grassroots campaigns and let's
not punish um people who are coming up and, and signing um uh these ballot initiatives. Thank you for
your time. All right, thank you, Mr. McCutcheon. Are there any questions by the committee? Mr.
McCutcheon. Singan thank you for those remarks. Thanks, sir. All right, next we have. Rebecca Zimmerman. Zimmerman
Zimmerman, if you would identify yourself in any
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
2:17:53
organization you're here representing, then you're recognized. Yes sir, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Rebecca Zimmer, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and we believe that Arkansas family should have a say in major decisions that will impact their communities. That's why we support the ballot measure process, and we ask that you please vote against SB 209. Again, we believe representative Underwood and Senator Hammer mean well with their package of bills. But in reality, this bill will most likely harm the average Arkansan
who participates in the ballot measure process with good intentions, no matter how perfectly they themselves follow the law. With SB 29, we believe the old adage, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater aptly applies here. The wrongdoing of petitioner should not disqualify the legitimate signatures of voters. Instead, the Secretary of State's office should thoroughly review and determine what signatures might be. project and which are legitimate, which they already do and the petitioner who broke
the law or uh yes, the practitioner who broke the law should be prosecuted, which they already can be punishing law-abiding people for the crimes of others is simply unfair, and the way the bill is currently written, the voter has no way to cure their signature, locking them out of the signature process entirely. Please punish the wrongdoer, not the NSA community members who want to participate in the ballot measure process. We urge you to please vote against SB 209. Thank you. Are there any questions?
See no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
Next up is Christine. Stewart to speak against. Please identify yourself for the committee and your
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
2:19:49
good to go. Hello, my name is Kristen Stewart. Um, I'm here just as an individual representing myself,
although I did volunteer on several of the amendments in the last cycle. Um, I know we've already heard quite a bit about how this legislation just grants the Secretary of State broad and vague authority to disqualify all signatures collected by a canvasser without a clear appeal process or path to cure those signatures. This bill doesn't just punish canvassers, it disenfranchises voters. Um, like I said, I was a volunteer canvasser and the
process is already so cumbersome to get the 90,704 signatures from around the state, in addition to the 50 county um requirement. Every signature represents someone's voice, their belief, and having a say in what appears on the ballot to throw out an entire batch of signatures. Because of one mistake without notifying voters or offering a chance to correct the issue. It silences those voices.
Um, voters who signed petitions have no way of knowing if their signature has been disqualified, they're left without the opportunity to correct a simple mistake or confirm that their vote has been counted. It also shifts the administrative burden from the government to the volunteer canvasser. Um, we've heard time and time again in this committee about all of the allegations of fraud throughout this process and the bad actors collecting signatures, um.
But the process already works. Um, the invalidation rate of signatures is already pretty high. If somebody signed twice, um, The duplicate signatures are thrown out. Um, one of the things that I did in the last election cycle was training volunteers on um one of the amendments, and I can speak to the very strict practices that we trained every canvasser on. The training was heavily
focused on compliance with the law as volunteers would be handling legal documents and had to be notarized. Um, one of the volunteers even spoke to an election staff member at the Secretary of State, um, to confirm that we were instructing our volunteer canvassers to be more strict than their regulations, um, and so they were even complaining to us that we were being too strict, um, not a lot, but just some, um.
But we wanted to be 100% within the law and do everything correctly. Um, I just really want to emphasize that this process already works. It's extremely hard to get a citizen-led um ballot initiative through the process, um. It already works, duplicates and errors are already kicked out by the Secretary of State's office and giving them like basically
unchecked power to toss out, not just like one signature on a page, but anything that a volunteer canvasser collects, um. I can't afford the $10,000 retainer to go to the Supreme Court. I collected a lot of signatures for multiple petitions and that to me is just an insane um way that we would have to fight to keep our voices heard.
Without having any kind of due process, but I thank you for your time and consideration, and I really hope that you vote no
on Senate Bill 209. Thank you. Are there any questions
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:23:54
of the committee? Representative Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I appreciate your testimony. I guess, um, you know, What would you
say is the solution when someone is has when a canvasser has clearly
violated the rules and practices. Let me give you an example. In, in one of the testimonies there was a there was passed out a picture of A clipboard with the petitions on it that had just been left completely unattended in a storefront where people were presumably signing the petition, but there's no one there witnessing it. Uh, when, when that type of behavior is, is observed and it's,
you know, what would you, what would
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
2:24:43
you suggest as the solution there. So if something like that happened, um, I would want all of the people that had signed the petition to have a chance to come back and give a signature, whether that's somewhere else, um, but to punish someone who might have sought out that location. To go sign a petition, like
taking away their voice is not right. So having some kind of process for the voter to make sure that they are able to sign because it's not their fault. They, the citizens, voters, they don't know all of these intricate processes, um, that are required. All right, thank you. Thank you,
seeing no other questions. We appreciate your testimony. Uh, next up we have Andrew
Speaker 72
2:25:41
Chambers. To speak against If I may, uh, sir, he, he left, but he will be speaking at 2:10. He listed for both things. He
Speaker 340
2:25:56
had to leave for work, he'll be back. OK.
Speaker 342
2:26:02
Excuse me, Ma speak 420. OK. 4209. I didn't know
it was going to be heard. Uh, yes, please come speaking 4209, identify yourself for the
Jesse Shelton
Unverified
2:26:11
committee. Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jesse Shelton. I'm just a citizen. Um, I'm here to ask a representatives about 4209. I feel like this is a very good measure by Senator Hammer, uh, if those that are signing the petitions and those that are gathering, you know, the canvassers are gathering signatures if they are honestly doing right, they have nothing to fear here, um, I think this is a a good uh measure put forward by Senator Hammer.
Uh, also constructing 210. I just have a little scripture here, uh, John, chapter 10. The devil comes only to lie, kill, steal, and destroy. So I asked the representatives, um, concerning 210, the Reed Act, does it not speak loudly enough uh to this holy scripture when those that are against Senator Hammer's good bills do not want the bill read, do not want any prosecution against that about signing. This is called full disclosure and many businesses require this before you sign,
uh, something of great. importance, such as permanently changing the constitution. Uh, I believe senators hammers, good bills will make fraud and deceit harder to achieve, which is a relatively easily because I witnessed it this past summer. I went to several canvassing locations. I talked to those that were signing at those locations. They hadn't read it. They were told only a one-sided story, uh, that was a short summary by a canister that hadn't really even read the the ballot title either. Um.
They were, they were told that the abortion amendment was not about abortion. It was about limiting government. They were, they were told that it didn't do for or against abortion, but we know for a fact that it was for abortion, um, the canvassers I spoke with at the Cercy Public Library, Sherwood Public Library. They said they were just there because they were getting paid. They hadn't read the ballot title. So I encourage representatives also about Psalms 1:27, Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
the fruit of the womb is a reward like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the childrens of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them, they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies at the gate, so again, Ephesians 6:4 stand firm then with the belt of truth buckled around your waist with a breastplate of righteousness in place. If you are doing honest here, you have nothing to fear about. Senate Bill 209 and 210, the Reed Act, Senator Hammer's good bills will make this ballot
title more clear and concise for citizens to easily read it, uh, it will prompt those that are making these uh ballot titles to be less worthy, less confusing, and more straightforward and honest and transparent about what they're actually trying to get people to vote for here. The Arkansas Constitution should not be for sale currently with a signature ballot initiative. can cheaply pay a few 100 canvassers to quickly gather signatures from citizens who are only briefly told by this
canvasser a deceptive one-sided summary of a wordy ballot written by a PhD written, written with a PhD grade level by a lawyer. Uh, this needs to be something that's clear and concise, and I think Senator Senator Hammer's uh Bill 210 will make the signature ballot title more concise and easy to read for others. Hammer's Bill 210 is vital to preventing the deceptive practices I observed this past summer with the Arkansas Abortion Amendment. It will also strengthen and protect the
Constitution and greatly benefit our Kansans as they make informed decisions that are easy to be understood and they'll be less deceived, sir,
and I apologize for interrupting you, Representative Rose is lit up his mic, Representative Rose. Yes, point
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:02
of order. You're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I appreciate, uh, the witnesses' testimony and may agree with. Much of what he's saying,
Speaker 180
2:30:09
we've established that this should be comments only on SB 209, not SB 210. All right, Senator, uh,
Representative Rose, and I agree with your point, um, we're on Senate Bill 209, not 210, I think you did reference to 10, that may have been by accident, but nevertheless, uh, we'll just try to keep your comments to Senate Bill 209. Thank you. All right, thank you, sir. Were there any questions by the committee, sir? Would you mind to answer any questions about the committee looks like we did have one. Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:30:51
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So something that you said a couple of times was that if um your petitioner and you're doing everything right, you have nothing to fear. But isn't it true that if you're a petitioner and you do everything right, you could have your signature thrown out through no fault of your own under 209. That if you are a petitioner after someone signing one of these, these uh sheets and you do everything right and your signature is completely legitimate. It could still be thrown out under this bill.
Jesse Shelton
Unverified
2:31:19
I think, I think when we talk
about the Secretary of State and due process and uh the signature gathering process. The state of Arkansas has elected the Secretary of State to make those good decisions and so we the people have voted for somebody that is going, we have confidence that they will only throw out and disregard or call the ones that are by a preponderance of evidence, it's, it's, it's to be thrown out. So I don't, I don't see we have
anything to fear about uh if you actually signed and that's your valid signature. You have nothing to fear, so. I, I just think it's a little excessive to to nitpick something that's going to strengthen the Constitution and the signature ballot initiative to prevent fraud, um. So that's all I have to say about that.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:32:11
Well, all right. Uh, I believe that under current law, a fraudulent signature will be thrown out under this law a legitimate signature will be thrown out if there's any uh perception of a law breaking by the canvasser. That's just my,
Jesse Shelton
Unverified
2:32:26
my clarification, I would say to that, uh, guilty by association because if you're gonna be uh gathering signatures from a canvasser that's deceiving people, um, yeah, then by all right, those should be thrown out. It, it's just that's my personal opinion. opinion the All right, any other questions by
the committee? Saying no further questions by the committee. Thank you, sir, for those comments. Next we have JP Tribble.
Signed up to speak against the bill. I may not
have read that correctly. But if you would identify yourself for the record stating the name of any organization you're representing
Jp Tribble
Unverified
2:33:06
you're recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and yes, you did read it correctly. My name is JP Tribble. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock, and I'm here to represent myself in the capacity of a private citizen, um. So first of all, this
The underlying issues behind this bill is not about fear. It's about the law and this. Bill denies due process to several people has already been stated. I would like to refresh everyone's memory about what due process means. It is defined as a person having noticed an opportunity to be heard, um. In the event that the Secretary
of State finds by preponderance of the evidence, which I believe is an unusually low standard for a criminal allegation, which normally is beyond a reasonable doubt. That person is entitled to notice. I don't believe under current uh procedure or under the procedures set forth by this law that every single person. Who's uh every single canvasser and every single petitioner.
Who would be entitled to such notice and opportunity to be heard would be duly notified. So, I am a very frequent petitioner in the state of Arkansas. I've because the people of Arkansas have reserved the power to bring issues to the people. I very much believe in the process, and I will sign almost any petition that is presented because it is a good idea to have public debate on
issues that the people of Arkansas think are germane. Um, I have also volunteered in multiple campaigns. I've also done legal work on certain campaigns and so I'm intimately familiar with the process. I have no way of knowing whether the signatures that I've placed on uh petitions have been accepted or not. I've never received any notice that my
signature has been refused. Therefore, as a citizen of Arkansas, I don't know where I stand. I don't know if my due process has been violated or not, but under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, I have a right to. that notice. I've also served as a canvasser, uh, a volunteer, albeit, and have never been notified whether there's any question about signatures that
I've collected. The effect of this bill is that the process is placed with the Secretary of State. I'm aware it's already been mentioned, but this is really a separation of powers issue where the Secretary of State becomes the Judge, jury, and executioner. The Proposed Subsection E1 says that if the Secretary of State finds by a preponderance of evidence that
the canvassers violated Arkansas laws regarding Canvassing perjury, forgery, or fraudulent practices, etc. and findings are made by the judiciary, uh, violation of laws. There are administrative agencies who are Empowered to make findings on violations of certain rules or policy but not law. That's the purview of the courts of the state of Arkansas. So to me, this is a violation of
the separation of powers and it doesn't do anything. I'm going to address Representative Ray's question. This law does nothing more to address. potential issues that current law fails to do if A bit if, if a canvasser leaves and a clipboard with petitions in a grocery store. Show me where this law will catch those violations whereas
present law doesn't if something happens, somebody notices that there's a clipboard left in a grocery store and They bring that forth to their proper authorities, yes, the signatures will already be discarded because they were improperly taken and if the canvasser certifies that. Then the canvasser's certification will be nullified as fraudulent. It should be turned over to the prosecutor because that's a violation of
law for the prosecutor to decide whether it should be prosecuted or not. This doesn't change that procedure at all, and it gives no safeguards that we don't already have. Um There is a huge difference in. Not counting his signature, which is the present procedure. The remedy would be to not count his signature if it's fraudulent and finding a fraud which this
new law purports to do. It also moreover removes subject matter jurisdiction for fraud from the courts of the state of Arkansas. So I don't believe that this will. Change the actual procedure, it, it creates. Greater roadblocks into collecting signatures. It crushes the voice of the people of Arkansas, a power for which they have reserved to themselves
when they delegated power to this body to make laws. But it does nothing to guarantee uh the process. So with that, uh, I do ask you to, uh, vote do not pass. Uh, for this blatantly unconstitutional bill, and uh I'm willing to answer any questions. All right, Mr. Tribble, thank you for those
remarks. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, sir, for being here. Thank you, thank you for those remarks. Thank you. All right, at this time it is 12:40 the House convenes at 1:30. We still have a number of witnesses signed up to speak on this bill, and I see that we've lost about 6 or 7 members of the committee. I don't think that going any further at this point is going to be helpful, so we're gonna come back this afternoon. We'll take this back up beginning 15 minutes after adjournment of the house.
Thank you all for being here at this committee is
adjourned until 15 minutes after adjournment of the house. Well we're in recess, not a term.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA AND TRANSPARENCY PANEL.
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.
HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS.
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.
HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM.
HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE ARKANSAS STATE ARCHIVES PRIOR TO THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
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
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.
SB188 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLIC POSTING OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS.
SB291 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND THE DEADLINES FOR COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS.
SB294 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTION AUDITS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO AUDIT A COUNTY IN THE PRECEDING ELECTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB295 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPROPRIATION FOR ELECTION EXPENSES; AND TO ALLOW COMPENSATION FOR A CERTIFIED ELECTION MONITOR AS AN ELECTION EXPENSE.
SB308 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE; AND TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.
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
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 N AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS".
HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES.
HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, INCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING.
HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 79, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING THE SPONSOR OF AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION.
HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME A LAW WHEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100.
HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 5, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 18
Speaker 23
Speaker 30
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 80
Speaker 84
Speaker 85
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 90
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 76
Speaker 134
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Representative Mindy
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 153
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 182
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 155
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 219
Chandra Hendren
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 234
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 249
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 265
Speaker 266
Speaker 254
Speaker 247
Speaker 263
Speaker 289
Speaker 298
Speaker 300
Speaker 299
Speaker 301
Speaker 297
Speaker 321
John Gaskin
Unverified
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 340
Speaker 342
Jesse Shelton
Unverified
Speaker 180