State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (45)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB283
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “pass over 83, right? You did say you wanted to pass over Senate Bill 283, correct?”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1369
Act 270
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1369 Ray CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGN CO…”
|
CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT BY THE ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION; AMENDING … | Ray | Notification that HB1369 is now Act 270 |
|
HB1379
Act 287
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1379 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SPECIAL AUTHORIZA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEALS AND LODGING WHILE … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1379 is now Act 287 |
|
HB1449
Act 250
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1449 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OR DISTRICT … | A. Collins | Notification that HB1449 is now Act 250 |
|
SB141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB227
Act 505
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…mmer Sen. Jim Dotson REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB227 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB227 is now Act 505 |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS. SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY A…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB241 is now Act 885 |
|
SB247
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB282
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. SB282 C. Penzo AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR … | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB291
Act 279
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. 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 |
|
SB293
Act 487
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND THE DEADLINES FOR COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS. SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB293 is now Act 487 |
|
SB294
Act 280
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NFORMATION, AND MATERIAL AT A POLLING SITE ON ELECTION DAY. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON FOR A CERTIFIED ELECTION MONITOR AS AN ELECTION EXPENSE. 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 |
|
SB299
Act 403
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB299 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER TO PRESENT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A STAFF MEMBER TO WITNESS AN ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTING A RESIDENT OF A LONG-TERM … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB299 is now Act 403 |
|
SB304
Act 372
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB304 M. McKee TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CH…”
|
TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CHANGED THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE TO … | M. McKee | Notification that SB304 is now Act 372 |
|
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 |
|
SB4
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…INITIATED MEASURES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR1
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR1 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIR…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF EACH HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR10
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR10 B. King A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN G…”
|
A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE … | B. King | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR11
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR16
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR16 Crowell AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PROPERTY TAX; AND … | Crowell | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR17
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO CREATE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS". SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR19 M. John…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR19
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR19 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXE…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS FROM THE EXCISE … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR2
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR20
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR20 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR21
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SJR21 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATED ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR23
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR23 M. Johnson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS GENERATED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 91, MAY BE … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR24
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DMENT 91, MAY BE APPLIED TO MULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS. SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR4
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR4 J. Boyd AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVID…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION SHALL NOT … | J. Boyd | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ME AS LAST APPROVED AND NO OTHER MATTERS ARE TO BE DECIDED. SJR5 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR7
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR7 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR8
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. SJR8 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING Page 3 of 4 PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 1
0:07
As soon as I got a motion. Um, Senator Hammer, if you
to go down there, uh. I know you've got a uh Quite a few bills, so we'll just start with a 263. And start
working our way down. And in the sake of time, I'll just let you stay down there and present them all. 283. I forgot my readers. I
Speaker 7
0:38
know. I, John, I forgot my readers. That's all your world, Senator Hammer.
You kill it whenever you want. No, I. Which you have to pass over 291293, 294, 295, 296. All right, uh, I
bring your guests up here and introduce yourself and tell us who you're with for the record, then Senator Hammer, you'll be recognized to proceed.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12
Waylon Cooper, legal counsel for the State Board of Election Commissioner. OK.
Hammer State Senator District 16. All right, please go ahead. And which bill did you want? 21 if you want to. 291 and all these bills are being brought on behalf
of the state election commissioner's office, and I think Chris is going to be up here in a little bit. Um Don't talk to him. Senator, you did say you want to
Speaker 21
1:38
pass over 83, right? You did say you wanted to pass over Senate Bill 283, correct?
I'm sorry, 283, you did say you wanted to pass over that for now. Can we just move it to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:53
the bottom of the agenda and we'll see how the day. Go ahead. 291. 291, this is a bill to bring the dates of which complaints can be filed so that they are aligned and it's hopefully Chris will get here in a little bit, but there it it's so that they're done 49 days prior to the date of the election no later than 49 days
following the day of election, there's a little bit of confusion or it can be confusing as far as one of it being 30 day and one of it being 49, and so what the what asking for, by the way, all these are approved by the board, so the, the board of elections have approved all these and requested these to be run. It would just bring some clarity to a line with the number 49. Some of that deals with it runs in sequence of sevens, and so that's, that's the ideal and yield of if I'm leaving
Speaker 31
2:46
anything. Currently, Mr. Chairman, the The rules say that complaints can be filed with the state board 45 days before the election and 30 days after the election, uh, we're changing, we don't want to change that to 49 days before and 49 days after to just make it consistent and also to allow that the uh the the time that we have to complain. Is, uh, I'm sorry, the time that the board has to act on the complaint.
Uh, will be from, will be 180 days even currently the, the, the law has it that they are, it's 180 days from the date of the filing of the complaint. And we would just change it to a consistent
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
3:31
date. So the intent of the bill, Mr. Chairman, members of committee, is just as he said bring consistency, but also I think it's good that we allow a little bit more time on the backside, and I think that's just good transparency, good accountability, and be glad to answer any questions. Yeah, is
Speaker 32
3:46
there any known opposition in any of these? None. Most
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
3:55
you, it's going to be 180 days the board has to respond. That's correct, Senator. It's
Speaker 31
4:04
currently, it's 180 days from the date that the complaint is filed. The board has to act on it within 180 days. This makes it, it's 180 days from the date that the election is certified so it, right now the, the, the due dates are kind of scattered
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
4:20
that it's gonna make it. You got certify it before you can really complain otherwise there's no real basis for OK, thank you. Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't really, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:30
we're talking about before the election and after the election. I don't really personally see a need to expand the amount of time before election because people aren't even voting until 15 days before an election, but I don't really, it doesn't bother me, but I am just curious about the time after the election, 49 days after the election. I mean,
We're into late December at that point. People are about to be sworn into office, um, we, it shouldn't take 49 days to know whether there was a problem with an election or not after the election and so I'm just wondering, I mean, is 49 days really necessary. I mean, if we needed
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:06
to be a multiple of 7, that's fine, but why don't we make it 28 or 35. Senator,
Speaker 31
5:12
I think, I think we just did 49 before and 49 after just for consistency, um, we do, would like to have it in multiple of 7. But um
There were several complaints that were filed. Within the 30 day period after this past election and we're just adding, we're just expanding the time so is there any No
Speaker 47
5:31
Do you have any knowledge that someone wasn't able
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:37
to make a complaint within the 30 day time period that exists under the law now. Well, Senator routinely people file
Speaker 31
5:46
complaints about an election. Outside that deadline and we just have to tell them that, you know, you're outside the deadline, we don't have jurisdiction. How far outside
Speaker 53
5:56
the deadline? It varies from days to weeks. Right. Thank you. Thank
Chair
Unverified
6:03
you. Any more questions from the committee? All right, see no more questions, don't see anybody sign to speak for or against this. Senator to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:10
recognize a close your bill. be very short in the closing any time that we bring consistency, so because we all know it's kind of confusing is the primary marches in May, so it's good when we can bring everything in line for the basic or for the purpose of the general public to know. So I think this will clear up some confusion also given the extended time is a good thing,
and with that I'll ask for a good vote and I'll make a motion to
pass. Got a motion to pass. Second from Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Not seeing any. All in favor. Say aye. Opposed. Congratulations your bill passes. You go to 2932. I want to
Speaker 58
6:40
just go and order if that works for you, Senator Hammer. OK, perfect. Thank you. Yeah
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:58
We'll get a brief summary then yield uh uh you know to the expert on this one. This is if you flip forward to the next page, copies posted under subdivision of this section she'll include a copy of the concise abstractpa distribute. There were some questions, some confusion also some reports that were filed as far as the clarity of what's required in the in the in the polling site area, so this is intended to bring clarity also to define what the signage is that's supposed to be placed in
there so that there's consistency, consistency, and that it removes Any of the ambiguity from what's expected around the polling site, and I'll yield to Waylon on that ad or correct anything I said. Basically Mr. Chairman, the, the various requirements
Speaker 31
7:44
to have various things posted in the polls currently are scattered throughout the code or at least that code section. This just brings them all into one code section, so anybody just have that code section and know
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:58
exactly what's supposed to be posted in the poll. That way they don't have to go look in multiple sections, so we're condensing it down
to one, so it's one easy site reference. All right, members you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any members from the members or any questions, Senator Clark, can
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
8:16
I ask you a question? Page 3 Laws 14 and 15. A sign containing the words No electioneering with within 100 ft. Could we get that to be a two-sided sign that on the other
side says no banning of electioneering over 100 ft. Senator, you're
Speaker 67
8:36
wanting a two-sided sign to say. Yeah, we have a problem around the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
8:40
state of Oh Election commissioners believing that it's OK to ban electioneering. Oh, at Poland's side. Um, I'll tell you what I'd be willing to do.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:01
If there's no, if there's no other issues with this, what I'd be willing to do. Hold this over, bring an amendment to add that because I don't think we could get the bureau to get over here by the time
we're done today and take your point and I don't think there'd be a problem with
Speaker 74
9:20
that. OK, so you're going to pull down 293. I'd like to hear if there's any other objections or anything Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:35
try it now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got Senator Hammer, I, I also have some non philosophical. proposed
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:42
language fixes to this bill that I think you may be open to, so I just wanna, I want to get offline with you as well.
OK, um, be glad to, and we're just remind the committee these are board approved. But yes, thank you. Put in a little bit, sure.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
10:04
On that two-sided sign, I mean, are we talking about a sign that's that's erected out in the yard or is it post because I mean you can't always have both sides of a sign where they're legible depending on the construction or how you're hanging it, what you're hanging on. Yes, Senator,
Speaker 31
10:18
the, um, the idea behind it is just to have a posting of the sign at the entrance in as big a font as possible, um, that's just for. So we just have a second sign. It could be two-sided or it
could be there's currently a required posting notice of electioneering inside the poll. There's not one for outside the polls, which is where it's occurring, um. We, we were just trying to Get it posted so that everyone's aware that you're not supposed to be within 100 ft. Yeah,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
10:51
I think I agree with that. Thank you. Mr. Cash, Senator Clark a question, please. All of that would
Restate what the sign you wanted to say, please. No banning of electioneering.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
11:05
Outside of 100 ft. I think that's as big a problem as the electioneering within
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:10
100 ft. So I think to address your issue, what we could do is go in there and add A sign stating No banning of electioneering outside 100 ft. We could go in there and add that pretty simple to
Speaker 50
11:25
that. What you, what do you think? Senator, I'm, I'm not aware. We've never had a complaint on that issue. We have numerous
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
11:31
complaints about election had written complaints. You've had
calls from me every election and with attorneys on the phone calling an election commissioners, telling them that
they can't do what they're doing, uh, so just because I didn't come back and make a written complaint because I'm not, I'm not complaining about the results. I'm complaining about the process that you cannot ban people from Uh Doing election things on election day at a polling time. Because, because election commissioners are all arguing that it's private property and that they can keep you from
doing those things. It can't be if it were private property, they can say that Senator Tucker can put up his signs, and I can't or vice versa. So it can't possibly be treated as private property on work today. And so a sign that says you can't ban electioneering. Uh, outside of a 100 ft, uh, because the attorneys always agree with me. But we're fighting it every election. I'm just
Speaker 92
12:28
not aware of any filed complaints no, there has
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
12:31
been no foul complaints. Well, there was a foul complaint in Garland County actually with Garland
County Election commission this last time and letters to the editor and an election commissioner getting mad and resigning, but uh. But in that case it was at a church and the church said You can't hold signs, uh, and somebody besides me finally complained and said, Well, you have to be able to hold tight and And I'm very, I'm a pastor's kid. I'm very sympathetic to church, but if you're going to be a polling site, you got to be a polling site.
Yeah, Cooper, I think a reasonable responsibility, I think that's a reasonable amendment, Senator
Speaker 58
13:15
Clark. OK, so on 293, uh, we'll hold that one then. Let's go to 294. 294 Oh yeah,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:27
this one is saying that if you failed an audit, um, In the current year that you automatically are put on the
list to be audited in the next year, um, currently,
uh, we have 15. We currently have 15 that are randomly
drawn in order to have a, excuse me, Mr. Chair, election audit afterwards. This one is just saying that if you're one that failed, you're going to be added to it, so it may be 15 plus 12 depending, and then once they have a clean audit that that would go away and Mr. Chair, if I may let Chris introduce himself for the
Chris Madison
Unverified
14:09
record now that he's had a seat at the table. Mr. Chair, my apologies for being late. I got held up at another meeting and was like, I
got to go. I'm Chris Madison. I'm the director for the state board. I appreciate Waylon stepping in for me. This one's pretty simple. Currently under our audit law we do it by lot, and we currently we've been doing it as a resolution where we identify the 15 counties, and what this does is if you have an audit and you have less than 100% accuracy, you will be audited next time. It just creates a category for it, um, and so that any county that
doesn't have a 100% result, they're going to get checked
the next time. All right. Remember you've heard an explanation or questions from the committee, Senator
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
14:49
Sullivan and Senator Payton. OK, what was that number this past election cycle. So
Chris Madison
Unverified
14:54
the way we've done it historically, we started this program following the 2020 election. We did it as a pilot program. We selected 5 counties to determine manpower or time, that kind of
stuff. Following that in the 22 cycle, we just did the general election, or we just did the primary. I think it's right.
And we just did the general, and we selected 15 counties and the way we do that is we have 5 categories, counties with population of greater than 100,000 and then one from each from each of the congressional districts, and we divide the counties up because like the first congressional district has so many counties.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
15:27
I'm getting confused. Can you just tell me how many you
would have had under your last audit that would have fallen under
Chris Madison
Unverified
15:33
this law, so we actually, we would have added one more county to our selection, so we would have had 16. How many? 16, so we have 15 that
Speaker 105
15:44
we randomly draw, this would have added 11 failed the one would have one failed the last audit failed, so they'll be added to the next one. All right, that's what I
Speaker 107
15:51
needed to know. Sorry, I didn't understand your question. That was my
Speaker 40
15:57
question. OK, all right. Are there any other questions from members, Senator Tucker, I'm
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:04
sorry. How, how much work is an audit for accounting? Say that again. How much work is an audit for your
Chris Madison
Unverified
16:09
office for an audit of one county. So it depends on the county and the number of ballots we draw, for example, Benton County, we just
did, we had 4 from our office plus 4 other surrounding folks to come and assist and it took us about 6 hours, 7 hours over 2 days. But we also did 12 or 13,000 ballots in that county. Right. And the more ballots that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:30
you have in a county, the more likely they may have won that's off. So, potentially
Speaker 114
16:36
the issue is What we're trying to do is if you
Chris Madison
Unverified
16:39
had an audit, I think you'd agree, senators, if you had an
audit and you failed it, you would expect to be audited the next time. Currently the way the law is written is it has to be done by lot, so you have a bad
Speaker 116
16:52
audit, there's no requirement for you to be checked next time, and this is to clarify that and provide statutory authority for it. All right, thank you. Alright, any
Speaker 118
17:03
questions for members, Senator Clark. Yes, I like the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
17:10
bill. The, this, the one last time, uh, they were like 1 or 2 votes off. Am I incorrect?
Chris Madison
Unverified
17:17
Actually, they testified before JPR about the number of ballots they failed
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
17:22
to count. And that was 11, OK, so it was 11, but the other audits were all Perfect. Could you walk us through really briefly how an audit is conducted. Absolutely. So as I was saying, we currently
Speaker 123
17:34
have 5 categories. Counties are greater than 100,000 and then a number of counties from each of the congressional districts, depending on
Chris Madison
Unverified
17:40
the number of counties. We randomly select the counties. It's done at a public meeting where we draw the names out of a
hat. We randomly select the race that we're going to draw for each count or check for each county. We do countywide races because that's on every ballot. And then we randomly select the boxes that results that we're going to crack open and count the ballots for and then we physically look at the pieces of paper, look at the name on there, count the pieces of paper and compare that to the results. So you do
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
18:10
a hand and this testimony came out in the committee meeting in Hot Springs. but it wasn't Wasn't being recorded and I've had people argue with me about,
about that we have audits at all and how those audits are conducted, so I wanted it on the record here, uh, that we do indeed audit them and how they're coming out that they're coming out 100% correct. 1 out of 15 didn't, uh, and so I, I want that on the record because I remember when it wasn't so, uh, but thank you. Thank you. All right. Are there any
Senator John Payton
Unverified
18:44
other questions, Senator Peyton? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when you say you do them by lot, you're drawing, um.
It's possible for a county. To get drawn two years in a row.
Chris Madison
Unverified
18:58
Correct. And we actually this last legislative session expanded it where we audit after the primary and the general, and so
that's why you'll see in here that it talks about, so let's say we audit you in the primary, you have a bad audit, something's amiss. You're going to be selected in the general. It's kind of a new category that we will come back. Thank
Speaker 133
19:16
you. All right. Are there any other questions? Any other questions?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:25
All right, not say any more, Senator Hammer. Thank you. Uh, I would appreciate a good vote because one thing we want to know is that every vote gets counted, every vote gets counted the way it's supposed to be counted, and so a improved auditing process, I think we'll assure citizens that their votes are everything is accurate, everything is right with that, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass. Got
a motion second from Senator Clark. Any discussion, not seeing any. All in favor say aye. I opposed. Congratulations,
Speaker 21
19:56
Senator, your bill passes. Moving to Senate Bill 295. Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:00
you, Mr. Chairman. Senate 295 they have 3 pots of money out of which they are able to operate what this is going to do is allow a little flexibility because they're increasing the number of monitors that are going out in the state, which I think is a good thing, and I'll let Chris speak to the exact numbers, but this would allow a little flexibility in their funding structure in order to be able to help cover the cost of the increased number of monitors they're going out there so they
can address things in real time instead
of being reactive. to it with that. I'll yield to
Chris Madison
Unverified
20:33
Chris ing specifics. I think Senator. So as the senator pointed out, we have 3 pots of money, our general revenues, we have judicial filing fee which backstops our general revenues for operational expenses. And then we have the elections fund is what we use to for publications, training materials, and for uh reimbursement the counties for the cost of the elections and what I'm doing here is moving the cost of monitors to the elections account, so it's not impacting operations and it
frees me up for operations for my staff people and our training and the other things that we're doing in the office. And
one of the things I'm proud of is the board is authorized and we've been doing um historically we've always waited until we've gotten a complaint or someone requesting a monitor
from out in the field, a county, um, we took the proactive steps through this, the primary and this general election where we, I filed it myself and I counted back during the general election either a staff member or a monitor
was at 60 different locations, that's 60 locations,
dates and times. Now some sometimes we went to the same place multiple times. But it was really good when I would get a call from somebody complaining about something, and I would say, Did you see the redheaded woman sitting in the corner and they go, Yeah, that was my monitor. And so this really provides some of that and it moves the cost of that over to the elections account about operations.
Speaker 136
21:48
All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Tucker, you're recognized
Speaker 138
21:55
for a question. What what is an election monitor do at a polling place? They're
Chris Madison
Unverified
22:00
basically the state board's eyes and ears, and so they're there to provide. On the ground observation of the election process, what's going on, um, we send them to counties that are doing well, and we send them to counties that we've had concerns about or issues or complaints or historical problems with, and they're there to observe on our behalf. They work for
Speaker 141
22:18
us. They will write a report for us that we use. OK, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:22
they're observing only. They're not or are they participating in any way or interfere is not
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:26
the right word because that has a bad
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:31
connotation. That's not what I mean. What I mean is, are they interjecting themselves into process in any way? No, their
Speaker 144
22:36
role is to observe, but if they see something amiss,
Chris Madison
Unverified
22:39
they call us and then under our supervisory authority or training authority we call election officials and go, hey, you might not want to do that.
All right, thank you. All right. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Are there any other questions
from members? All right, see one not seen my son speak for or against this. Senator be recognized to close. Thank you. Appreciate
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:57
it. I think you heard a good explanation. The bill will be good intentions to get the
monitors out there and we can address problems in real time
and they need to be able to have the funds do it. So with that, I appreciate a good
vote and I'll make a motion to pass a motion hammer, Sam Senator Sullivan on any discussion on the motion all in favor, say aye. I opposed. All right, congratulations, your bill passes. Moving on to Senate Bill 26 on 296, this
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:23
is a bill that's going to address an issue that's coming up this year
if we don't pass it, it's going to be problematic. Veterans Day falls
on election day. And so what this bill does is allows for the election to be moved to a week later. Am I on the wrong one? 296.
Did you 296? Yeah, I'm just going in order here, my bad, my bad. OK. Yeah, yeah, 296 296 296. I was on the wrong bill. OK, I'm gonna let Chris explain this one, be shorter and quicker.
Chris Madison
Unverified
24:03
Uh, thank you, Senator. Briefly, this is in direct response to a Supreme Court ruling from this last general election. If you remember in the media there was issues related to Crittenden County and early voting and the Supreme Court ruled that a county clerk could designate anywhere in the county for early voting, um, but if you were a bifurcated county where you have two county seats,
you had to have it in the county seats. This cleans that up and says the county clerk designated early voting has to be in the county seat. The reason we do county seats is because sometimes the courthouse isn't really good. place to do voting so they do it
across the street, uh, for example, like Saline County, a voting annex.
This also addresses the Supreme Court ruled that the CBEC, unless they have a vote, must run the early voting like they did last time following the election day polling. Which election day poll sites, you're just tying up one day, you know what it is. Early voting, you may run a place 3 or 4 days of certain hours and you don't know from year to year whether you're going to be able to do that, so this
requires a positive vote each cycle, each election of the election commission to say these are the
additional early voting locations that we're going to run, and with that, I'm happy to help
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:09
answer any questions. Ser Tucker. Why, why restrict the county clerk's designated early voting location to the
Chris Madison
Unverified
25:18
county seat to avoid the politics. and functionally if the county board, because as you're aware, is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. They do all the additional early voting early voting traditionally has been done in the courthouse, but we don't want to limit it to the courthouse so the county seat
allows it to be wherever the county is based at, and it follows the bifurcated county layout that's later in the statute, but it's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:41
not that in every county the county seat is the most populated. town in the county, correct? That's
Chris Madison
Unverified
25:46
correct, but that's why you have the opportunity to do additional voting sites at the CBC runs, and that's how the law is currently structured by the county clerk
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:53
wouldn't have the authority to designate an early voting location in the most populous town in the county under this law if it passes. That is correct, and
Chris Madison
Unverified
26:00
that's been the practice that it has actually been, and this has been reviewed by the county clerks
Association. Um, this is really bringing the law into compliance with how things have been operated throughout the state. Thank you.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right, not seeing any, don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against. Senator, you are recognized to close for your bill. Thank you. I'm closed. I make a motion to pass. All right, a motion, Senator Hammer Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Not seeing any all in favor. Say aye, aye posed. Congratulations. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:42
I'm going to let Chris do it because it gets to the point quicker, of
Chris Madison
Unverified
26:49
course. So senators, as you're aware, the state board conducts investigations of election law violations, complaints, things like that, and one of the things we have discovered is that Currently in-person voting assist stores. There's no requirement to identify who they are other than what they say. And the example I will give you
is I go to assist at a polling location. Senator Hammer and I check in is Chris Madison. And then I go to another polling location to assist Waylon, and I'm now Richard Christopher, and I go to a 3rd place and I'm now Christopher Richard. And what this bill does is it requires an assistor, which is someone who's helping in the marking and casting of ballots to provide identification that complies with Amendment 51 and then have the poll worker actually create the list because I've also gotten the lists where they have the assist or fill that paperwork out and you can't read the name that's on there,
and this is to provide some validity and protect, quite frankly, the most vulnerable voters because these are the voters that are bringing someone or being brought to help vote and it's one of those things for integrity and security to protect those
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:53
voters. And may I add, Mr. Chair, and he'd correct me if I'm wrong. I think the law currently allows for 6. Is that right? That's
the law currently allows for an individual to transport 6 people to vote, but part of the problem and reason this bill is necessary is that there is no
way to track and to know if a person is bringing greater or lesser than 6, so what this bill will help do is provide that accountability, so if you have what is referred to as people haulers that are people and going in, this would give the ability for
Chris Madison
Unverified
28:27
them to know by having that form of ID recorded. Is that correct? That's correct. And then the second part of
this bill is currently administrators of nursing homes can assist voters in completing their absentee
ballot paperwork and what's happening is you have one employee that's potentially helping voters. The second part of this bill would require two employees to sign off on the assisting of absentee voters in nursing homes, and this is er ed along what we do with poll workers where poll workers assisting, it requires 2. And so those are the two things to try and improve, uh, protecting our vulnerable voters with
Speaker 163
29:00
these processes. OK, let's just see one, you
Speaker 1
29:03
know, just one here. I see you have, OK, with long term care or resident. OK, so that's going to encompass skilled nursing facilities, assisted
livings, you know, and residential care. OK, perfect. Yes, right. Remember you've
heard an explanation of the bill, Senator Dodson, you're recognized for a question, and Senator Tucker,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
29:20
thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm Just want to clarify something you said. Um is a person who is
transporting someone considered someone who is assisting that would be covered under this, or is it only someone who walks them in and says, Hey, I'm, I am so and so like the scenario I'm
thinking of is an Uber driver takes 7 people. Because you know they are an Uber driver and they don't have a car they're running around or something like that, would they? Have to identify themselves correct me if I'm wrong, I think
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
29:56
the good thing about this bill is it doesn't discourage people from getting out to vote. We want as many people getting there, so if I go get a charter bus and I bring 40 people to the polling site to vote. That's a good thing. It's once I walk in and I present myself, we don't want somebody walking in with 40
people influencing how they're going to vote or we want to comply with what is already law 6, so it's not going to discourage
people from getting charter bus driver. would not have to show your license. Or go
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
30:27
inside at all. You take them off and they're ready to go, you stop by McDonald's and get your free lunch. I'm not going there, but anyway, thank you, Senator Senator Payton and Senator Tucker.
Speaker 136
30:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So here on page 2.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
30:46
3A where it says at least one long term care residential care facility staff members shall witness the administrator. We've got 2 people involved here. I think you said that. And it says Assist the
voter by marking delivering a ballot on behalf of the voter without any comment or interpretation. Is it both of those that are not allowed to make a comment or is it one and which one would it be? They can't make a comment.
Chris Madison
Unverified
31:16
Or interpretation, so in a assist or a person filling out the ballot has to do
it at the direction of the voter. So this applies to both that are assisting the voters, so the way this is envisioned, much like voting
in person. The poll, there's one poll worker who's going to operate the device at the direction of the voter. There's another poll worker who's observing neither of
the poll workers can comment on, well, you should vote for Bob or vote for Jim or vote for this issue or against this issue. So when we're
Senator John Payton
Unverified
31:43
talking about in a long-term care facility, we're gonna have a
Chris Madison
Unverified
31:47
voting machine there. No, no, no, this is absentee ballots. But you have two people, you have, so let's say for example that Senator Hammer is incapable of operating a pin. He can't handle the pin. I go to assist him and I'm filling out his absentee ballot form, which is perfectly legal. I just have to do it in his direction. Under current law, there's no witness to our interaction.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
32:07
I got that. I understand the reason for the witness. I think I understand the spirit of what we're saying without any comment or interpretation. But I don't know how I can assist somebody.
In filling out a ballot without Making comments without having a conversation of some sort. I mean, I don't
know if there's a way to amend this because like, you know, you say like you're, you know, we're voting
for Congress here, Mary versus, you know, then we're going to president here. You know, maybe there's so many, you know, you know, scenarios I have a long term care facility. I get
the intent, which is to not try to sway somebody, which is, well, Mary, you know you're a Republican, and here's the Republican candidate, you know, I, I think that is the intent.
This kind of the language really says like you go in there and you're kind of
Chris Madison
Unverified
32:56
like killing killer. You see nothing, you do nothing, you're just so this language came from exactly the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
33:03
language we have currently for in-person assistors. So the in-person assists. So it would be in a long term
Chris Madison
Unverified
33:09
care facility also? So this is an ad to the law and this language about without comment or interpretation, those phrases are what is currently applied to a poll worker who is
assisting a voter in person in voting. So this has been used historically as I'm not there to tell you how to vote, but I can say we're voting on President. Who do you want? And then the voter gets to select. So if the voter asks me
Senator John Payton
Unverified
33:34
what's that constitutional amendment mean? That is not
Speaker 105
33:37
what you're supposed to answer. You, you, you don't provide that interpretation. You can read this voter asked me, well, which one's the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
33:44
Republican? You can say, Senator Kim Hammer, Republican
Chris Madison
Unverified
33:52
Senator Chris Mattis or, you know, Chris Madison, Democrat. OK.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
33:57
You're there to act on behalf of the voter. So in that other section of code
Chris Madison
Unverified
34:02
where it's already used, is it defined? Not any further than what I just discussed.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:07
OK, thank you. Right, Senator Hammer. I want to ask a question as
a member of the committee. You all, I love that. So Chris, It is already In law without any comment or interpretation that that is how
it's referenced in other places, correct? Correct. So if we did anything here, we're going to have to do to be consistent change all the other places in the law where that comment is used, correct? Yes. Would it be easier if we were to just um Maybe through uh through another bill, another legislation define what that means so it could apply across the board to all places where it's used and how many other places are used, do you know? It applies to
assist stores and to the poll workers for
Chris Madison
Unverified
34:56
in-person voting, and then we're adding it here to absolee voting, so I think we could do a definition for that term in another proposal. It's just this is the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:04
term that we pulled straight from other law. But the purpose of the two witnesses is to keep anyone. From influencing how somebody votes. That's the reason for the two, correct? That is absolutely correct because currently there's basically the midnight shift nurse could vote for
Chris Madison
Unverified
35:19
somebody and there's no witness to it if I could have a follow up.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
35:26
I mean, basically, in my perspective, I think you could add one word and say without any leading comment or interpretation. So I just wanted
to make that suggestion. Thanks. Sarah, I'll leave that up to you if you want to OK. I didn't know
Speaker 185
35:48
Senator Clark had, yeah, I'm sorry, Tucker. Hey, only I call him Senator Clark, Senator Hammer.
Chair
Unverified
35:56
OK, Senator Tucker, you are recognized. I'm going to use
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:59
the term a sister. Just so we know what we're talking about, it's short, um, did a federal court not strike down the cap on an assist assisting 6 people to vote. No. So district court did, but it's on
Chris Madison
Unverified
36:15
appeal. OK, but the district court did strike it down. The district court struck it down, but the 8th Circuit stayed that decision pending a ruling and the, I think it was the uh the materiality provision, I think if I remember correctly, but
it's currently on appeal on the 8th Circuit. The briefs are done. We're just waiting on a ruling from the 8th Circuit. Should we wait on that ruling before we pass this law? This doesn't affect the number of limiters. This doesn't affect the limit. This still provides whether you assist 6 or
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:42
60, you would have to show. ID to verify who you are if you're not capped on the number of people you can assist,
Chris Madison
Unverified
36:48
then there is no need to track how many people you're assisting though, correct? Not necessarily because I have personally observed voters being assisted that and I'll give you an example, the voter came in, was highly intoxicated, and was asking his sister, who am I
voting for? What am I voting on? And this is the idea for post investigation for if you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:08
have someone that's unduly influencing your voters. The rationale for the district court and striking down the cap on the number of his sisters is that people have a fundamental right to have anyone assist them who they choose. Correct, I believe that's correct, yes, sir. Would that same rationale not applied to striking down this law because let's say the person
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:25
who I want to assist me voting. Uh, doesn't have a document that
meets the requirements of Arkansas Constitution Amendment 51, Section 13, is that not violate the same constitutional right? I
Chris Madison
Unverified
37:36
don't think so, although the nuances of that I would leave up to the Attorney General in a challenge on it. The purpose we're trying to do here is
to verify that you don't have someone who is um Not being truthful about who they are when they're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:51
assisting voters. Well, Arkansas Constitution Amendment 51, Section 13 was passports, military IDs, and Arkansas driver's licenses, correct? Those are some of the forms of
identification. Yes sir. Out of state driver's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:05
license is not on the list. It is not. So if this law passes, I live in Salem Springs, and my daughter lives in Sasa, Oklahoma. And my daughter doesn't have a passport or a military ID. My daughter cannot be my sister when I vote. Under this
Chris Madison
Unverified
38:22
law if it passes. That's a potential if she doesn't have a passport or any other government ID
or doesn't get a because the rules related
to ID are issued by the state of Arkansas issued by the federal government, a post-secondary educational institution in the state of Arkansas, trade school or a voter ID card that's issued by a county clerk. Well,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
38:42
so what if I'm a Marshallese person living in Northwest Arkansas. I'm not bilingual. I speak Marshallese only. My 14
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:49
year old child is bilingual, speaks English fluently. My 14 year old child doesn't have an Arkansas driver's license or a passport or a military ID. Obviously you've got to be 18 to vote. You don't
Chris Madison
Unverified
39:02
have to be 18 to be in a store. So there's a difference between being an assist store in
the marketing and casting and providing the translation services or being in the care and custody of the adults. So if a 14 year old were attending and assisting a voter in the voting, they're in the care and custody of their adult parent who's providing, who's doing the voting and the person is reading the ballot to him, well, this is talking about is the person who's not actually interacting with the devices,
Speaker 163
39:25
marking the ballots, putting the ballots in the tabulator they have somebody else doing that for them.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:32
OK, well, what if it's not my 14 year old child, but my, my
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:37
14-year-old child's friend. Same notion. I, I think we're, I think we're overly restricting who can first of all, I think this bill is unconstitutional. I think I believe it is. I'll be voting no on it for that reason. But even if you disregard that, um. We're not allowing citizens of other states to be assist stores, uh, if they, if they don't have a passport or a military ID. I don't think that's y'all's intent, but that's what the result is going
to be if this bill passes as written. It shouldn't say meets the requirements of Arkansas Constitution Amendment 51, Section 13, because the assist stores are not voting. They're assisting. That's the law in Arkansas is that you got to meet the requirements of Arkansas Constitution Amendment 51, Section 13, if you're voting. And, and that's the law. And so be it, but the assist doors are not voting. They're just assisting someone else to vote. But they're the ones that are actually
Speaker 122
40:28
marking the ballots for the voter. They're the ones that are
Chris Madison
Unverified
40:31
handling the ballot for the voters. They're the ones that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:35
are placing the voters' ballot in the tabulator. So what's the, what's the logical distinction for allowing an Oklahoma resident who has a passport from being an assist to and not allowing an Oklahoma resident who does not have a passport to be an assist. What's, what's the, what's the distinction there? So the Two things that
Chris Madison
Unverified
40:55
come to mind. First is the current law is again the limitation of the 6. But outside of that is verifying the identity and the Tying to Amendment 51 is that's
law that's currently existing in Arkansas if for voters. For voters, and these are acting on behalf of voters. And I think that's, that's the logic tie in my mind as I look at this is that it's not just someone who's helping them into the poll. It's someone who's engaging in the vote of acting or the act of voting for the voter. So an Oklahoma resident
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:27
with a passport, they're good to go. They can verify their identity. We're good with it, and Oklahoma resident with a driver's license and without a passport or military ID. We
don't trust that person. That's, that's the, that's where we're drawing
Chris Madison
Unverified
41:40
the line and partly because poll workers understand the IDs that are acceptable to Amendment 51. I
don't know what an Oklahoma driver's license looks like. I don't know what a Texas driver's license look like. I don't know what a New Mexico driver's license is. So the question is, is can you get out on the peremptory and find some example, sure, but the idea is this is something that poll workers are already accustomed to checking and looking at.
Speaker 206
42:08
All right, members, are there any questions from members of the committee? OK,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
42:13
Senator Payton, you're going to ask for a question.
Sorry. You're talking about a limit. There's a limit of how many people you can assist. Is
that what you're saying? That is correct. That's when we're talking about the witness and
the administrator assisting. Uh, is there a limit on how many you can witness.
Chris Madison
Unverified
42:35
So two different things going on here, Senator. First is the in-person
assist or. That's the first section one and To that relates to in-person voting that has a limit of I can assist 6 people in voting in the poll. The second portion of this relates to nursing home long-term care facility administrators. They do not have a limit on the number that they can do. That's my question. All right, members, are there any questions from the committee,
Speaker 118
43:01
Senator Clark. What did you say the law said before cause I don't see
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:09
anything marked out here, so. Uh, something about a limit, so there
Chris Madison
Unverified
43:14
is, and it's not quoted in here, there is a law that limits in-person voting.
I can assist 6 people, and that's what Senator Tucker was talking about. That law was challenged in federal court. The district court struck it down. It's only, it's on appeal now in the 8th Circuit, but it's current law in Arkansas. What this is doing is just doesn't affect that provision.
This is just if you're going to assist people in
Speaker 210
43:40
voting in person, bring your ID. I think
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:44
that the Previous law did what needs to be done, uh, there's no reason unless you're actually actively trying to Uh, affect the vote. I can't see a reason why you need to help more than. 6 people, uh, But so uh. think that upon appeal, but what was the judge's What was the judge's rationale on on striking it down? I don't recall the specifics of
Chris Madison
Unverified
44:11
the case offhand. It was ruled on about 2 years ago, and it's 1 year and a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:18
half ago and it's on appeal. If if I need someone to assist me in voting. I have a constitutional right to choose whoever I want. To assist
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:25
me And if the person I want to assist me has already assisted 6 other people in the state of Arkansas than the person I
want to assist me is prevented by law from assisting me, and that's a violation of my constitutional right to choose the person I want to assist me. That's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
44:42
much more theoretical than my daughter from Oklahoma, but that could happen. The But you know this gets into the Easter bunny land as far as I'm concerned because I've helped my mom. I've helped my dad. But there's just a list after that unless I'm trying to affect the election. I can't imagine why I'm standing there. Uh Normally people who need help
bring someone with them. They don't need somebody there. Uh, in the real world, I mean, because I've But so again I think that that may, may not need anything because uh it on appeal it may get overturned. Uh, because it seemed to be a very logical. Logical way 6 is a lot. Senator Hammer, I'd
ask you as a courtesy if you'd consider pulling this bill down I've got, I mean there's members ask some other questions. I think that we
can probably, you know, make some revisions here, but I think Senator Tucker raised some good points. I've got some questions, so it's your decision, sir. um. But I would vote no on it in its current form. I'm in support. In support
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:02
of. I'll tell you what I'd like to do, Mr. Chair, what I'd like to do is, I'll pull it down. Let me, let me work with with Chris and Waylon because if we're going to get into something that's going
to affect where it's already in law elsewhere. I'd like to have that discussion with them, and then,
Speaker 21
46:20
and then we'll come back. It just seems, you know, to Senator Tucker's Point, you've
got a a child and in Oklahoma, and if they don't have an Arkansas driver's license, a passport, a military ID and you
mentioned another voter ID. Could that be a voter ID from the state of Oklahoma but not a driver's license. In Oklahoma. So the way this was written was
Chris Madison
Unverified
46:45
with the idea of the poll worker in
the poll being able to know what IDs look like without requiring them to understand what all 50 IDs across the country look like. And so that was the idea of this of tying it to Amendment 51 because those are IDs that are currently used and recognized by poll workers and understood by poll workers.
That was the point of selecting those. That terminology. We should go find a bouncer at a
club in Georgetown in the summer of 2000. He knew what my fake Arkansas ID looked like when I
was 2 months short of 21, so, um, you know, I see what you're trying to do, but this is going to have some unintended consequences here. And that, you know, I, I appreciate what you're trying to do with this. I do have some concerns. It's obviously Senator Tucker's going to have some concerns. What I'm like, I don't figure out the votes to get this out of here in its current
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
47:40
form. But. Organized. The whatever we do with this bill, uh, you need to do something, uh, I hope that this
is overturned on appeal because Regardless of what the judge said. That it's your costs right to help whoever. I don't think that's true, uh, because what we had happened over in eastern Arkansas and that had happened for not just years, decades. Uh, that where they were handing people a card to take in with them. This You get up over 6, that becomes the same thing. You, you've got somebody in there to, to tell you how to vote and potentially
paying you for your vote. So I think the judge couldn't be more wrong like I said, I hope it's overturned, but until then, I hope you can come up with some language that that will make a majority of the committee happy.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:30
I've got to bring another one back, so what's 2 to bring back? We'll work on it.
Speaker 34
48:34
OK. OK. Gosh, you're super agreeable, Senator Hammer Clark. I don't
Speaker 21
48:36
know, 3, but we'll see. OK, so I think we got to You did do that and there's always the exception that proves
the rules, Senator Clark. OK, so is Senate Bill 308, Senator Hammer, is that your final, uh, yeah,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:54
308. I'm gonna defer to Chris. We seem to make, make better headway. OK, this is probably the
Speaker 142
48:59
easiest one we have. We've gotten rid of all, we'll see about that. Well, I love the question, so we'll see, uh 308 Senate Bill 308. So short of this one
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:13
is we did away with write-in candidates last session. We missed some places in the code and this
deletes those misplaces from the last session. It is just deleting references to write-ins.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:30
Cheer. Krish give that one more time, please. For
Speaker 142
49:35
would you one more time, Chris, one more time. So,
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:40
uh, last session we removed all of the write-in candidates opportunities.
We missed some sections in the code, and this is removing final references to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:50
write-in candidates. And Mr. Chair, the reason I Partly wanted that was because there was some chatter about opposing this bill because, you know, some just opposed it, but I wanted to bring out for clarity, we've already done this. This was done last session. This is just clean up to what was already done because uh and and maybe Chris would want to go into this, maybe he wouldn't, but you know, you have people writing Mickey
Mouse, Elvis, John Wayne, everybody else in there, and the for what that could do to the ballot as a whole. I think was part of the rationale maybe Chris wouldn't mind explaining why it was we we did away with the write-in option last time it might give people some some comfort or some understanding. And thank you, Senator.
Chris Madison
Unverified
50:41
Briefly, we had already gotten rid of write-in candidates for all of your smallest offices, city council, JP, stuff like that, and if you're going to win a write-in candidacy, those are
the offices where you're likely to do it. These were larger offices were right in, wasn't going to be successful. Similarly, a write-in candidate had to file at the same time of all the other candidates to file and then have their write-in candidates. So this was all removed. The opportunity to be a write-in candidate was removed at the last session. This was just some code section. that reference write-ins that was not Included in the prior bill should have been, this is just cleaning up and deleting references to write-ins to avoid having to go and look at Mickey Mouse and Tom Cruise and
All of those things on ballots. Right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there
questions from members of the committee? Sorry, I think I'm going Senator Sullivan. My hearing seems to be failing me here, uh, you say you're going to make the motion,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
51:44
Senator Tucker. Oh my God, discussion. I want to make a second because I know why Senator Tucker's making this motion. He's so popular in his district, he's afraid when he quits running that they're
Speaker 89
51:56
going to continue to write his name in. members, we've got Senator Hammer, are you close to
Speaker 236
52:04
your bill. I'm ahead, I'm close man. We got a motion on the floor from DuP Pa by Senator Tucker, a second by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye, opposed.
Speaker 21
52:18
Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes historic. Oh my God, do we have any others here, Senator Hammer, um, you wanna, you wanna.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:28
Just a few more. Yeah, um, it's not, I think that's all the ones dealing with the state board elections, I'm not as a courtesy
Speaker 1
52:38
to the members of this committee, if you all would quit asking Senator Hammer to carry
Speaker 227
52:45
all these bills. A 1449 House Bill 1449. What I say they're here 1449. great.
Speaker 35
53:00
Yeah, OK, OK, 1440, is that Andrew Collins?
Speaker 74
53:02
You run that one? Yeah, let me find it in the stack,
Speaker 72
53:12
Mr. Chairman. I'll have to have a copy there. OK, thank you Oh, I take,
Speaker 78
53:21
yeah, I do. I think I do remember this. Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:47
All right, Sarah Hammer, you were. OK,
on this one, running this bill for Representative Collins, this extends the date of which the final is required if you look on the back page, it puts it to no later. Then 20 days after the end of the month following the month, it cleans up when the final report is due, so it aligns with some of the other reports that are due, so it just brings some
consistency and clarency clear. Clarity, thank you, brings clarity as to when the final report is due so that they align is what it's about. All right, members, you've heard an explanation
of the bill. Are any questions from members of the committee? All right, so no questions. Don't
have everybody sign up to speak for or against the jury you recognize a close to your bill. I think I explained it. I'll make a motion to pass. All right, I got a motion in her hammer. So a second Senator Dodson. Any discussion on the motion, none. All in favor. Say aye, opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes.
Speaker 236
54:50
I've got another one, but I'm gonna wait till next time to run it, OK? Hm. You're welcome. I'll probably stand
Speaker 58
55:01
a better chance this time. Thank you, Senator. All right. Representative Ray, Senator Dodson, going
Speaker 241
55:07
to do a verbal amendment to make you the lead the Senate sponsor on this bill. Uh, It's the bill. What's your
Senate district? I think it's going to put it into the first congressional district. Yeah, yeah,
it's. Yeah So yeah OK, so, but, but here's the thing like we do actually need to find a Senate sponsor on this. I don't get this on the floor and Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
55:47
Ray. If I could, Senator Gilmore told me that he would be amenable to
being the Senate sponsor. Senator, Senator Dotson just
wants to, I would be happy to defer to him as a Committee member. To
add a sponsor, I don't think that'd be overly controversial. Good
point, noted. All right, so it's going to be Senator Dodson, uh, Carl spin the rules to do that verbal amendment. Peyton, would you consider that to be a technical correction
Senator John Payton
Unverified
56:22
from the suspend the rules and we allow a technical correction in the form of an amendment to
add. I said it's possible Senator Bean, Senator Jim Dodson. All right, members, you've heard the motion during a second. So second for Senator Hammer, all in favor. Say aye. I oppose of of women adopted. Congratulations, Senator Dotson. That was the suspend the rules, yes, I jumped ahead of myself.
All right, now, the motion to add Senator Dotson, a
verbal amendment to that Senator Dodson to be the lead Senate sponsor. On House Bill 1369. No. That Right, so
Senator John Payton
Unverified
57:10
I moved that we had to do as a Senate sponsor for House Bill 1360. Alright. Any discussion on that, Carly, this
Speaker 229
57:18
a debatable motion. Matter, so you know we had a
discussion on the motion all in
favor say aye Pod. Yeah, Representative Wray, don't ever come up
Representative David Ray
Unverified
57:35
on this committee without a sponsor already on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Res proceed. All right, thank you. um. So House Bill 1369 essentially streamlines the biannual updates to campaign contribution limits, so as everyone knows in statute our state contribution limits are basically linked to the
federal contribution limits so that they mirror each other, and every 2 years, the federal Elections Commission will update those federal limits to account for inflation, and then our limits are updated accordingly. The problem is because of our lengthy rulemaking process. There's a really significant gap between the time that the Federal Elections Commission updates their limits, and when our limits get adopted that update through the rulemaking process typically takes anywhere from 4 to 6 months. Last election cycle, I believe it
took 6 full months to be updated. And since these limits are only valid for 2 years in total, you've got a 25% of the election cycle where you have one limit for federal candidates and you have one limit from state for state candidates. So what this bill would do, it was it is that it would simply exempt the update and the contribution limits from the rulemaking process, and it would require the ethics commission to adjust the new limits within 30 days of the FEC's update and the rulemaking process is really not
a good fit for this function anyway, because there's really no discretion on behalf of the ethics commission. There's a simple statute or there's a simple formula and statute, and they Update the limits accordingly. So I've run this by the ethics commission. They have no problem with it. They said it will just be one less rule that they have to promulgate every 2 years. And we'd be happy to take any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of
the bill, Senator Dodson, you're recognized for her question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
59:31
I thank Mr. Chair. Just as far as the the. I guess the current process. It took 6 months. It's retroactive back to to the beginning of the cycle, so it's good for the whole cycle as it is right now, right? And this, this would make it retroactive back 30 days to whenever that rule chain or whatever, whenever the federal contribution changed, it would match it at the same time. Yes, that's correct that language is on page
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:00:04
3, line 19 through 21. It would do the it would do the same thing. Awesome. I thought I read that in there, but I want to verify it. Yes, before I got that question on the floor. when I'm presenting this as a co-sponsor, I want you to be very comfortable
Speaker 136
1:00:17
with the language. Alright, thank you, Senator. Members are our questions from the committee. Alright, so you
know for her questions. I don't see anybody sign to speak. speak for against this bill. Representative Ra recognized close. I'm
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:00:30
closed for the bill and I appreciate the committee's indulgence today
right, got a motion. Senator Dotson. Senator Tucker's passed as amended. All in favor.
Speaker 260
1:00:41
Say aye. Congratulations. Bill passes as amended,
seeing no further business to come before this committee. We are adjourned.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Sen. Flippo
REGULAR AGENDA
SB227 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD.
HB1379 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEALS AND LODGING WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THE STATE.
HB1369 Ray CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT BY THE ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION; AMENDING PORTIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
SB282 C. Penzo AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION.
SB283 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.
SB291 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND THE DEADLINES FOR COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS.
SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND THE LIST CONCERNING REQUIRED POSTING OF NOTICES, INFORMATION, AND MATERIAL AT A POLLING SITE ON ELECTION DAY.
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.
SB296 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING LOCATION BY THE COUNTY CLERK.
SB299 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER TO PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION; AND TO REQUIRE A STAFF MEMBER TO WITNESS AN ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTING A RESIDENT OF A LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY WITH ABSENTEE VOTING.
SB304 M. McKee TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CHANGED THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE TO CAST A VALID BALLOT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1449 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OR DISTRICT OFFICE; TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FINAL REPORTS; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
SB308 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE; AND TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
SJR1 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENACT, AMEND, OR REPEAL LAWS CONCERNING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
SJR4 J. Boyd AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION SHALL NOT BE HELD IF THE PROPOSED RATE OF TAX LEVY IS THE SAME AS LAST APPROVED AND NO OTHER MATTERS ARE TO BE DECIDED.
SJR5 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CASINO GAMING SHALL BE USED FOR CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES.
SJR7 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
SJR8 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING.
SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN STATE COURT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
SJR10 B. King A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY.
SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS.
SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, OR DISTRICT JUDGE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE.
SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES.
SJR15 J. Dismang 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.
SJR16 Crowell AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PROPERTY TAX; AND TO CREATE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS".
SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
SJR19 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS FROM THE EXCISE TAX LEVIED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 75.
SJR20 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.
SJR21 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATED ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.
SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION.
SJR23 M. Johnson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS GENERATED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 91, MAY BE APPLIED TO MULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES FOR INITIATED MEASURES.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION.
SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS.
SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT.
SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Feb 27, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 7
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 31
Speaker 32
Speaker 34
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 53
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 58
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 74
Speaker 77
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 92
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 107
Speaker 40
Speaker 114
Speaker 116
Speaker 118
Speaker 123
Speaker 133
Speaker 136
Speaker 138
Speaker 141
Speaker 144
Speaker 163
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 122
Speaker 206
Speaker 210
Speaker 142
Speaker 89
Speaker 236
Speaker 227
Speaker 35
Speaker 72
Speaker 78
Speaker 241
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 229
Speaker 260