State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (53)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1194
Act 251
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY. HB1194 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1194 is now Act 251 |
|
HB1507
Act 252
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PORTIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990. HB1507 Ladyman TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL J…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR GOVERNANCE SCORES; AND TO CLARIFY THE … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1507 is now Act 252 |
|
HB1514
Act 253
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IFY THE EXEMPTIONS FROM DIVESTMENT FOR CERTAIN INVESTMENTS. HB1514 Painter TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF … | Painter | Notification that HB1514 is now Act 253 |
|
SB188
Act 272
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. 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 |
|
SB208
Act 240
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB208 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO VIEW A CANVASSER TO REQUEST … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB208 is now Act 240 |
|
SB211
Act 241
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB211 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO REQUIRE A CANVASSER TO … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB211 is now Act 241 |
|
SB212
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. 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. |
|
SB231
Act 342
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS. SB231 J. Dotson TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMP…”
|
TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB231 is now Act 342 |
|
SB272
Act 278
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
HB1369
Act 270
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LODGING WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THE STATE. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 6. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND APPRECIATION OF THE INTEGRATION OF HOXIE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 2/26/2025 @ 4:00 PM) Moved SB247 and SB248 to Deferred Senate Committee on State Agencies an…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 2/26/2025 @ 4:00 PM) Moved SB247 and SB248 to Deferred Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governme…”
|
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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. |
|
SB283
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB283 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB291
Act 279
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…COUNTY IN THE PRECEDING ELECTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING LOCATION BY THE COUNTY CLERK. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY WITH ABSENTEE VOTING. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF A "CRITICAL-NEED EMPLOYEE". 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INITIATED MEASURES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR1
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ANDIDATE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR16
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IGHTS". SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O PUBLIC RECORDS OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS. Page 2 of 4 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 75. Page 3 of 4 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR4
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
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
Before we get started, I do want to recognize we do have a few pages joining us today. Riley Hinton with Senator Scott's constituent Lisa Academy West, right? y'all standing up. Lillian Tackett, Benton High School, I guess that makes you Senator Hammer's constituent. My apologies. Jared Tackett. Senator Hammer's constituent, again, my apologies, sir, and we're happy that you all are here today. Hope you enjoy your time at the Capitol, and members, please welcome us and join our friends here at the Capitol.
We will do our best to make sure that it's not like watching C-SPAN at 2 a.m., maybe a little bit entertaining. All right, so first up, we're going to take up um Senator Croll, you've got a couple of bills you're going to run. We'll let you start with Senate Bill
272. And introduce yourself and then you'd be recognized to proceed with your
Speaker 10
1:05
bill, sir. Senator Kroll, District 3. From Magnolia, the first bill is
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:12
272, and that bill simply clarifies that neither an elected official or any other person can prefill out the voters registration application. Um, we've just had instances where they will prefill it, and that is something we don't want to do. So That simple. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Senator Tucker, you have a question
you are recognized. Currently, if something is prefilled and it turns out to be
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:45
wrong for whatever reason, then it still wouldn't be accepted as a voter registration application. Let me give you an example. Let's say I'm doing a voter registration drive in Pulaski County. And a pre-filled Pulaski County for the county of voter registration and then someone, Senator Dodson comes along and he's like, Well, I live in Benton County. Well, I'm not going to give him a prefilled. If I give him a pre-filled sheet with just Pulaski that's prefilled. And then he puts his address in Bentonville or wherever he lives, it's not going to be a valid voter registration application.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
2:18
Is that not right? That one wouldn't, but let's say you marked a political party, and it wasn't his political party of choice. And they, how do they how do they know when the application exceptions. Right,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32
but what the individual who's filling out the application, not See that you would
Speaker 21
2:37
hope so, but we've had instances of people allegedly doing just that and not being caught. I think it
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
2:43
should be up to the voter to fill it out in the way they want to.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:52
Uh, OK, uh, what's, what's an example that we're we're curing here. An example just what I said. I
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
2:59
mean, we've had, so let's just say a Republican committee person. is doing a drive. And keeps marking Republican, Republican, Republican, Republican. And somebody doesn't want to be Republican or Democrat. They just want to, and this person turns it in. Do you think that's fair that It should be pre-filled out. Uh, I don't know. I guess I just I'm up to the individual.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:26
To review their own application, but OK, that's it. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Senator Clark. Senator Cole, sir. I was
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:35
a deputy A voter registrar 30 years ago. And I've never prefilled anything out, uh, but is, is this one thing that you just, your answer to Censure Tucker is this the one thing we're trying to solve, or is there, is there more happening here? Yeah, I mean, we're just trying
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
3:56
to make, well back in 2023, we did this with absentee ballots
too, and we're just trying to standardize everything and make it show that the people fill out the form. Totally by themselves. Now when I was a deputy voter
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:11
registrar. They didn't fill out the form totally by themselves. I sat there and took their information and wrote it down. Are you saying that And I gotta tell you, if It was something sad voting.
Uh, if anybody wants me to do anything, I said, here's my information, you write it down. If, if you ain't got time to write it down, I ain't got time to mess with it, but, uh, There's a problem then with the registrar writing the information in with somebody. Well, I'm gonna bring somebody up, but my understanding
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
4:45
is, is we've had a problem having them pre-filled out. Oh, I would like to hear about the problem Lindsey.
Yeah, go ahead and recognize it yourself, tell us
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
5:08
who you with if you recognized her. Um, Lindsey French with the Association of Arkansas
Counties. This is a county clerks association bill, um, what we have had happen. It's not a hypothetical situation. A county clerk received a stack of voter registration forms and it was very clear that the same person had pre-marked a certain political party at a voter registration drive before they gave them to people and then those people were just there at that voter registration drive,
um. Filling them out and giving them back to that person who went and turned them into the clerk. They weren't filling them out in a clerk or a registrar's presence and
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
5:45
currently that's not. And you said without a registrar who? Correct. Who has to know or is supposed to know what they're doing and, and, and I don't even remember what responsibilities there were, but, uh, but you had to be careful to follow the law. Uh, so.
Uh, but will this though keep you of registrar from filling. Filling this out for someone? No, it will not.
Speaker 46
6:16
There's a process where if someone needs assistance, a registrar can't assist. Well, I'm not saying needs assistance. I'm just
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
6:22
saying I somebody said they wanted extra vote and I just sit down and fill out their information and that time I will always, I cannot imagine. A rear, and I have no problem with that being against the law. I cannot imagine somebody doing that and checking a party.
Without somebody asking you to check a party that's obviously wrong, uh, and that we ought to deal with, but, but I don't want to make it so strict that That somebody can't fill out that form uh for somebody and then, and then have them look at it and sign it. And I think what you're describing
is assistance that is allowed. If someone asks for you to help them
Speaker 49
7:01
fill out their form. OK. Thank you. I think he sent her Sen Payton. You'll recognize for her question.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
7:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way I read this bill, It can't be prefilled and it must be delivered to the applicant with the fields blank. So if I hand it to the applicant and say sign this
voter registration form, and if you want me to, I'll fill it out for you. And they signed it and hand it back to me. And I fill it out. I'm not violating this bill. Is that correct? I think what you just described
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
7:43
is probably the status of the law now, and this would tighten it up. Quite a bit. Well, I mean, if
Senator John Payton
Unverified
7:51
I'm filling it out. Post them having it, having received it and signed it. Then, then this bill. I'd be clear from what this bill says, wouldn't I? I'm not following the voter registration application shall be delivered to the applicant with the fields blank. So if I deliver it to the fields blank and they sign it.
And they write in half the information and hand it back to me, and I fill in the rest of it for them. I wouldn't be violating the The language
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
8:28
could do that under current law. OK. Yeah, registrars are not permitted to just On their own volition, fill out people's voter registration applications. Well, I hate to speak in his absence,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
8:36
but Senator Clark alluded to the fact that that's how
he did it is. Sitting there with them and filling it out for them.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
8:45
I, I can't speak to what a deputy registrar did 30 years ago and what was legal then, OK,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
8:51
so you're saying as of today, Registrars don't fill it in for them. Without someone requesting assistance, correct. Well, that's
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
8:57
what I said in my example. I hand it to them blank,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
9:01
and I say sign it, and if you need me to, I'll help you fill it out. That
they hand it back, that's asking for my assistance, isn't it? Not unless they explicitly. Ask for assistance.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:17
OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Senator Dodson, you recognize real quick. Mr. Chairman So, I guess As you said, That is the problem just
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
9:47
specifically with related to one specific field that people are pre-filling out. Is this a widespread problem? I mean, All across the state are we just not training people to say, hey, don't pre-fill out forms for folks. It It's not a training issue
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
10:07
because the instances we've heard, it's not people in the clerk's
office who are doing this. It's people who come and get stacks of voter registration forms and take them to a county
party committee meeting or um a church or something and say, hey, who's not registered? and they start handing them out.
Speaker 74
10:28
So how widespread is this issue or this problem? We hope
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
10:34
not very so. We're, we're really trying to correct something that's a fairly isolated instance, but then the senator Tucker's point, if, if someone had pre-filled out the county, say, you know, they were in Pulaski County and they're going to a church for
your instance, and passing out the forms where probably the majority of people are going to be from Pullaski County or they had one from Saline County and Faulkner County or whatever, and he said, OK, I got this one, this one and this one that would
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
11:07
illegal under this. that is already prefilled, and that's addressed. In D2 there. Unless otherwise required by federal state rule or regulation. The, the agency code for the county is already prefilled. So they don't have to write down
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
11:22
their county or their city even they would put their address, their address, so say you were in Little Rock and Most people you anticipate are going to be living in Little Rock. There's a lot of population there in your hand on the street corner or whatever, and you had that that form pre-filled out, Little Rock, so they didn't have to write that in or Arkansas. It's just going to have a county agency code. Just going to have the county agency code, OK. All right. Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:53
Senator Hammer, you to recognize for a question. Thank you. What problem is
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
12:01
it you're trying to fix with the bill? We are trying to prevent people from having someone they trust, give them a voter registration form that they look at and fill out and may not go over it with a fine tooth comb and not realize that someone has already
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:16
pre-selected a party for them. Do and you have examples where this
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
12:19
has occurred, and you, you passed, I believe you were the sponsor last year
this very exact same thing we did for absentee ballot applications that they had to be blank, so we thought it was a good move to do that for absentee ballot applications, and it would also be equally applicable to voter registration applications. And where do you see the majority of problems
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:38
happening? Whereas in a location? Where no,
no, whereas in where where in Do you see that this is going
to fix A problem as far as it's going
to be in the absentee votes. It's going to be in where, where's this going to? Hi. We're just going to fix. What area of the election process is is going to apply to the voter registration registration, OK. And so it says in the bottom unless otherwise required by federal state law, rule, regulations. So if somebody's disabled, somebody's got a really legitimate reason. Why they can't, then that should be covered under federal or
existing state law or rule or regulation, so for somebody who's got a really legitimate, maybe. Disability or something of that nature, all those reasonable reasons for why are going to be covered under those other rules. Is that is that correct? OK, then the last thing is this there's, where's the punitive action for somebody that gets caught doing
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
13:49
this. That would be somewhere else in the election violation codes.
That's a different statute. I I didn't come prepared to to discuss that part of the code today. I'm
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:03
sorry. OK, and who is going to be who's primarily going to be investigating to determine that this law has been violated, so the
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
14:09
registrars, the county clerk, and they would be the one to notice, um, That something nefarious had happened. Like I said, in this case, it was very clear which
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:19
you've already seen examples of, OK, go ahead. I'm sorry. And they would turn that
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
14:26
over to probably the Secretary of State's office or the state, the state Board of Election commissioners is who would investigate that. OK,
Chair
Unverified
14:33
all right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Senator Clark, you're recognized. The Senator
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
14:40
Kroll, if you want to run the bill as it
is, I'll support it. Uh, I think it would be better. If it just addressed the problem. Which is the boat, the voter themselves has to check the
party, uh, that seems to be the problem, uh. And uh that make it against the law and put them in jail if somebody else does it, uh, but, uh. Again, I will, I can't speak for the rest of the committee. I will vote for it as is, but I think it would be better if we did just that. Wouldn't you agree?
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
15:29
I think if we get a vote on it today, I'll pull it out and I'll give you more. We'll put an amendment on that and get it to it meets the standard. That
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:44
sounds good. OK. Yeah, Senator Tucker, a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to make the exact same suggestion that Senator Clark just made and just a couple other comments that I will format into a question, but you know, the bigger picture concern is that in Arkansas, you know, we rank consistently 49th or 50th in the total number of people who are registered to vote, and
There are nonprofit organizations that are not totally nonpartisan who register people to vote, and they, you know, they fill out their names and addresses for them and then just like with any document we ever sign in a society, we read it before we sign it, and that's the way the process has worked and I'm concerned about passing a law that is going to make it harder for people to register to vote, given that we're already at the bottom, and It would inhibit these nonprofits' ability to help get
people registered to vote. I think this law would. And so my, my, my question was going to be if you consider the same thing that Senator Clark suggested, and also I'm looking at a voter registration application right now and just, just for the sake of the discussion, it's not a box you actually have to fill out you have to write the word out. Just for what that's, I'm sure you all know that. I, I was, I was not aware of that. So just for what that's worth, and I would just ask, you know, we're in the Senate committee now. I'd just like to fix Senate bills in the Senate before we send them to the House. So that would be, that would be my request.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
17:03
Fair enough. Sounds good. May I, may I ask a question of Lindsay, and Senator Tucker, may I ask you a question? Would you be OK with, uh, Senator Clark's suggestion about party only being the prohibited field, yeah, that's, yes, uh huh, yeah, if we just said. Uh shall
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
17:22
be delivered to an applicant with a party affiliation field blank. Yes, I'll vote for that bill. Uh yeah, I don't know. Can we do a voice minium in here?
Chair
Unverified
17:35
And the rules. All right, so, yeah, we can do that discussion on go ahead. I would just personally suggest
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:54
rather than trying to do a verbal amendment potentially in here, um, we're going to be in. I don't know exactly how many of Hammer's bills we're going to get through today, but I think
With the chair's permission, if you have a couple. An hour or so, at least probably to get with BLR and try to do this, we could possibly vote on it at the end of the meeting, yeah, and and that way I get it done clean and correctly and bring it back at the end of the meeting. That would be my only suggestion. I'm wherever the committee members of the committee are, I think
it's a fairly technical correction, you know, if there's the support to do, you know, suspend the rules to allow for a verbal of event. I'll be fine with that, but if there's not support amongst members of the committee and you then So, um, With that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:42
hammer recognized, if, if you did go to BLR and get it done. One of us should run it for you, number one, so you got other things you got to do, be glad to pick it up, run it for you, #1, but #2, before we move on, are there other issues because we're talking about the voter registration. Are there other issues that potentially This would capture or dress because we focused in on the registration. Are there other issues though before we go limiting what this bill's able to do that you've seen experiences that we need to have. Fixed
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
19:12
No, Senator, I think it's a pretty narrow problem we're trying to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:17
address. So let me ask you, let's just say that we went to Just for the merits of the bill and for me to get my mind around things, let's just say that we went closed primaries in this state. How could, how could it be manipulated. By either with or without this bill if we were to say go close primary, how could somebody abuse it or use it to their advantage as it would be impacted by the spill.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
19:45
Uh, so what had happened was um a
party had voted to go to closed primaries, and people were concerned that their friends would not be able to vote in a closed primary, so they got a stack of voter applications, took them to their friends already prefilled out to ensure that they would be able to vote in the primary. So if somebody wanted to, if
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:04
somebody wanted to push close primary. Without this bill Then what would happen is they could go get a bunch of these prefill them out for their party, regardless of whichever
party it is and be able to recruit people into their party. In order to If they wanted to say go close primary. Is that a fair assessment? I'd say that is, yes. OK, thank you. Gives y'all some leniencies. Senator Crowley, I'm
going to ask it would be a good idea if you actually and I allow Senator Tucker and Senator Clark to, you know, ask her questions, but pull it down. You send it back to
BLR, make the amendment, take it back here, you know, whether it's, you know, you know, you know, during this morning's
meeting or good potential we might be meeting after a session, Kim, and um you know, or, or next week when we get this done, but with that, you know, I think that would be the more preferable
route that Senator Clark and Senator Tucker organ. OK, I have no problem with you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
21:04
Going over there and rotting it out and bringing it back to us, but I'll caution you. A committee has allowed me to do that. It's a, it's not faster. It's, it'll create a bigger mess than, than you know, and you'll
get to have the same learning experience that I've had, but you better to go to BLR, but again, I'm fine with you. Yeah, we're going
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
21:26
to BLR. I mean, in I know Hammer's not really doing much today, so he could probably run this for me this afternoon, so. Yeah, Senator
Senator John Payton
Unverified
21:34
Payton, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify in, are we just adding those words to D1 or are we eliminating D2 because it would seem we'd have to eliminate those bottom three lines.
Speaker 128
21:49
I think Isn't D2 federal. Um That's Senator
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
21:59
Payton, here's, here's what I've just jotted down right here um on line 30. Um Adding between the and fields, saying the party affiliation field blank. And then on D2, the voter registration application form
shall not contain A prefilled party affiliation. Pre-filled party affiliation field on the form. OK,
Speaker 49
22:26
thank you. Alright, thank you. All right, Senator, let's go ahead
and pull that down and we'll get it fixed. You bet. And then we'll let you run a House Bill 1514. Yeah, Lindsay. Alright, House Bill 1514 amends the uniform
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
22:51
attendance and leave policy Act that adds the Department of Military military to the list of agencies that have critical need employees. This bill simply clarifies and makes sure that all 24 hour a day positions at the Department military are covered. Critical needs employees are those positions utilized by this agency 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Department of Military has firefighters, law enforcement officers, security officers, and dispatch that are 24 hours a day at Cap Robinson,
Fort Chaffee, and the Air Force Base. With that, I will take attempt to take your questions. All right, members of her explanation of the bill, are there
any questions from members of the committee? Give you all a few seconds to, all right. Saying no questions. Do we
Speaker 140
23:40
have anybody sign up to speak? Nope. Senator, you're right has to close for your
Speaker 10
23:45
bill. I ask for a good vote, please. Thank you. All right, Senator Spier's bill, got a motion to pass from Senator Tucker. 2nd from Senator Dodson. All in favor say aye.
Opposed. Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. Thank you. All right. Next up
we're gonna take Representative Kavanaugh. Remember she's going to be running House Bill 1194. If you're
gonna introduce yourself and you'd be recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
24:26
Mr. Chair. Fran Kavanaugh, a state representative District 30. Um, this is a bill that will just allow a monument would be placed on the Capitol for Hocky, the first stand, um, for anyone that doesn't understand the significance of the Hocky, the first stand, um, Hocky, although it was the 3rd integration in the state of Arkansas. It was the first challenged integration of a school in the United States of America, and sent the legal precedent for all the other integrations in this country, so we're just asking
that we'll be able to place a monument on here to tell the story of Hoxsey. Um, it allows a fund to be set up and private money to be raised for that monument. All right, members, you've heard an explanation
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:09
of the bill. Senator Hammer, you were recognized for a question. Thank Representative Representative Kavanaugh, the,
the receiving of the money is that going to be over at the Secretary of State, or is that going to be to a private entity out of which Out of which the bills will be paid for. My understanding is it sets up a fund in the Secretary
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
25:29
of State where the private money can be housed. It's the way it was explained
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:36
to me. OK. All right. Thank you. Not against it. I'm just know for the one that I did last time and the things were having to work through. I just want to make sure it was easier than that
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
25:47
was the way it was kind of explained to me and Hocky the first stand already has a nonprofit set up that's working to raise money. Good.
Speaker 108
25:53
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I remember questions from members. All right, so no questions. I
don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against the bill. Representative, you recognize a close for
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
26:05
your bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. This is a story that really needs to be told because it tells a significant story in American civil rights. Thank you. All right,
members have got a motion to pass from Senator Clark. Got a second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion? Say none. All in favor say aye. Opposed likewise. Congratulations, Representative, your bill passes. Let's see here.
Next up, uh, Senator Sullivan, do you want to run House Bill
Speaker 157
26:45
1507 real quickly. All right, Senator, Dan Sullivan, District
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
26:52
20, and folks, this has no opposition, no. I know that's unusual, but this passed in the House floor
96 to 0, um. Representative Ladyman ran it in the House. This is to correct an issue that was created when we passed the ESG bill last session. You'll see from the current statute that we created an exemption from divestiture if there was going to be a financial penalty that would negatively impact the state. However, several have asked that we clarify that exemption as it applies to all public entities that were impacted by the bill, and it was never our intention
for public entities to be forced to divest of investments of public dollars if that would negatively impact the public entity. This bill simply extends the exemption to all the public entities impacted by the original legislation. While this bill will allow them to wait until the mature date at the birth. So as not to lose tax dollars. It does not remove them from having to divest. We're running this bill with the OK from Senator Hill and Representative
Wardlaw, the lead sponsors of the ESG bill. I'll just say this again, it kind of something that was left off the first time that impacts our area in Jonesboro. center and you kind of touched on this, you know, you know, in your presentation, but um
if there is indeed no opposition to this bill, then why are you carrying it yet. OK.
I'll leave that open though. I see members studying it very closely here.
Speaker 30
28:35
Senator Senator Tucker and Senator Payton. Oh, I was gonna say is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:39
Senator Sullivan that Senator Hill owes you a favor because I would have loved to have questioned Senator Hill on running this cleanup bill two years ago from the ESG bill in committee, so you let him out of it, so, uh, position now
Chair
Unverified
28:51
I'm voting for Senator Payton, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm
Senator John Payton
Unverified
28:55
just curious. If the language of the bill we passed two years ago required them to divest. Then how could this help them now if they've divested.
Speaker 171
29:08
So, um, I don't know the answer to that question. This is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:18
my, this is my best answer to your question. There was an exemption in the law passed two
years ago. If there was harm to the state, and this expands the exemption not only to the state but any other public entity. Right, but
Senator John Payton
Unverified
29:31
I mean. If it wasn't already expanded two years ago, then that means that they were required to divest for a public entity, not
for the state. So the public entity that was required to divest two years ago. If If they have divested according to the bill passed 2 years ago, there's nothing left for them to divest of. That's probably true, but I think they're just ensuring that doesn't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:56
happen again, and I think the reason Senator Sullivan and Representative Leman are the ones doing this is because the public entity that had to divest in a way that was harmful to them was in Jonesboro, and so they're just making sure that doesn't happen to someone else in the future is my guess, but I don't want to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
30:10
speak for Senator Sullivan. I'm doing it because folks in my district needed this clarification to the law, and they feel like this clear. ri f ies what it is. If you'd like for me to pull it down without opposing it. I'll be glad to pull it down and find the answer out, but I think again this was in our district, your district also, I think, where your businesses are, they came and said we'd like this clarified, and that's all this does is clarify what the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
30:42
existing law is. Well, I think the answer to my question came to me while I was just sitting here thinking, the list. of companies that Um That are blackballed because of that bill. It changes from
time to time, I would assume. And so therefore if the list changed, they might be required to divest of something that that was OK two years ago. So I think that would be the answer. Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. Alright, have any more questions from members of the committee?
All right, see no questions. Don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this bill. Senator, you'll recognize a
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
31:20
close your bill. I'm closed and make a motion to pass a motion to
pass from Senator Sullivan. Got a second from Senator Hammer. Any discussion on the motion? See none. All in favor. Say aye. opposed likewise. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes unopposed. Congratulations. Feels good, doesn't it? But All right, woo. Don't get used to it. Let's see here.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
31:48
You know, according to my phone, it is a 10:42, but I think there must be
something wrong because looking at this agenda, it is hammer time I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:00
appreciate y's indulgence to the chair's lame attempted humor. With Senator Hammer. Uh Yeah,
I'll let you go, Senator Tucker. I'm still thinking about Senator Dodson. I was going to use that to hold
y'all hostage to make sure that you didn't leave the committee until, OK.
Speaker 193
32:35
Senator Tucker, you're, what are you running again? SB 188. OK, SB 188. That's good. This bill has been referenced in this
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
32:44
committee several times, but it's it's the first time I'm actually presenting it. This, if you'll notice the House sponsor
is Representative Ray as Roby Brock said to me the other day, if there's something to do with ballot measures that myself and Representative Ray are the sponsors of it. It's got to be down the line. So, um, so this is one. What this does is it requires, as we know, there are a lot of ballot measures being circulated for petitions in the last election cycle, and as I'm sure is the case with every other member. The committee, people called me a lot and said, What did he say? I'm curious what they say. So far as I know, there's not a central repository where all of the language can be found right
now. Some ballot measures have their own websites, but the Secretary of State's office, once the language has been approved by the Attorney General, the Secretary of State's office is the one is the one that really administers the process from that point forward in terms of validating signatures and whatnot, so um once a ballot measure language has been approved by the Attorney General, then this bill requires the ballot measure sponsor to provide that language to the Secretary. State's office, so the Secretary of State can post it on their website. That's essentially what the bill does. The Secretary of
State's office is good, is good with the bill, and that's, that's really it. There's no penalty for the ballot measure sponsors. I made sure to make that clear. Um, but, uh, you know, it's, it clarifies when the Secretary of State can remove it from their website. You know, if If they didn't gather the requisite number of signatures if a court has removed it or if the Secretary of State independently verifies that it's not being actively circulated for signatures, then they can remove it from their website, that sort of thing, but that's, that's it. I'm happy to take any questions.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:24
All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from members of the committee? Uh, Senator Hammer, we're going to
ask for a question. So the, so the burden to get the information to the Secretary of State is on the sponsor of the initiative. Is that correct? That's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
34:38
correct. The first version of the bill I had written is once the once the
Attorney General's office approved the language, then the Attorney General would email it to the Secretary of State's office. I ran that by the Attorney General's office and they said, They didn't want to have that statutory obligation in case they missed it, you know, so I,
I, I removed them from the bill and put that burden on the ballot measure sponsor to get that language and not only do they send the language over, but they also have to send the letter from the Attorney General that certified the measure just to demonstrate that it's it's the proper ballot measure in language, OK, and I really do appreciate
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:11
the bill. I'm just curious what if they don't, what's the punitive action if they don't. There is, there is no punitive action and and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:19
that's actually, I wanted to put that in the bill. Um.
This is designed to be helpful, you know, to the public and not punitive, um, so it
says, well, there's I accommodated that in two ways. If you look on page 3 of the bill, subsections G and of the section. Subsection G says if the Secretary of State independently determines that a proposed measure is actively being circulated and the ballot measure hasn't sent in the language, then they can get the language from the Attorney General and post it on their website of their own volition. Um,
And then he says there's no penalty for a response to a sponsor for failure to comply. So
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:05
what if I don't want the people to know what's on the initiative, and I don't, then I just don't submit it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:13
and No harm, no foul. Right, it's worse than we're in now, no worse shape than we're in now,
and, and I think if any if any ballot measure is approaching 72,000 signatures for an initiated act or 90,000 signatures for a constitutional amendment. I'm certain the Secretary of State's office will will be made aware of that even
if the ballot measure sponsor hasn't submitted the language to the Secretary of State's office, in which case the Secretary of State can just make a call over to the Attorney General's office and say, hey, would you send me that language and Uh, and then
the Secretary of State can take care of that's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:44
not to do that. All this is on the burden of the People that are running the initiative, correct? That's correct. It says the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:51
Secretary of State may do that not shall, and the intent of the bill
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:55
is to make people more aware of What the petitions are, give them greater access to it.
Absolutely, yes, sir. OK, so if somebody didn't want somebody to know what the initiative was. They chose not to put it on it. It might be a good thing if people had to read it before they knew what they were signing, correct? Would you agree with
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:16
that? uh leading question. I think it's good for people to have an opportunity to do that. Peyton, you're recognized. So just
Senator John Payton
Unverified
37:24
to be clear, if the sponsor does not provide it to the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary of State's office is
still free to be able to post it. Yes
sir, 100%. All right, any other questions from members of the committee? All right, so no further questions. Do we have anybody sign
up to speak for against this? No, the senator, you're working to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:49
close your bill. I appreciate the discussion, um, close for the bill. Appreciate a good vote and
make a motion to pass. All right, got a motion, Senator Tucker. 2 Senator Clark. Any discussion on the motion? See none. All in favor, say aye. Opposed like signed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. All right,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:05
Senator Dodson, you got, you're going to do Senate Bill 231. You got some people are going to join you.
Yeah I know that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, I've got. Some people here from the Office of the lottery. Great, y'all go ahead and introduce yourselves to the record and tell us who you're with then Senator Dodson to be recognized to
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
38:54
proceed. Sharon Strong, executive director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery. Blake Hudson, director of investigations and enforcement for the
Speaker 207
38:58
Arkansas Lottery. Great, thanks for being here. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this bill
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
39:09
The meat of it is on the last page. If you look at page 4, we're adding a section that says the officers are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the lottery, uh. The issue that we've run into is that The lottery has a hard time enforcing some of the rules and regulations that they're required to maintain and um and I'll let them explain that a little bit more and dive into the meats of the the bill and answering questions for you.
Speaker 208
39:41
Thank you all for allowing us to be here today to present this bill. Um, We, this is an agency bill that we have received approval from the governor's office from and we've also been in communication with Attorney General Griffin and Colonel Haggar from the Arkansas State Police and have received their, um, Approval as well on this language that was referenced by Senator Dodson in the last Few lines of the on page 4. I'm
going to let Blake Hudson explain in more detail. What is needed from our office for this. Chairman and committee, thank you again for
Speaker 215
40:23
letting us be here to give you a background on myself, I've been in law enforcement for about 20 years serving from small city agencies up to federal operations including 10 years as chief of police and an attorney special agent, the Attorney General's office. I came to work for the lottery back in September and
the need for this bill was immediately apparent. This bill is a critical step in ensuring the safety of both our employees and those that come to our office, the Bill Grant law enforcement authority to select members of our division within the lottery and the primary reason behind that is the protection of others. Our claim center operations as well as community events, make us clear targets for community or excuse me, for criminal behavior. My greatest concern as an administrator, whether it was when I was chief of police or
even in this position is the safety of our employees and those. Citizens we serve. Just yesterday, for an example, I was called down to our claims center to deal with an irate individual who is extremely angry that the ticket he had purchased was not a winner. Um, and through Just verbal de-escalation, we were able to get him to leave without any kind of further escalation or incident, but that's a common occurrence, and right now we're not equipped to do anything with those type of people.
And then in addition to just ensuring the safety of our people. We have issues where our second duty is to investigate the crimes related to the lottery like primarily lottery fraud, which is a class D felony, and we face obstacles every day in doing that mainly due to a lack of law enforcement resources having access to those that you had to be a designated law enforcement officer to access.
Um, then muscle, which is our governing body that governs many aspects of lotteries nationwide prohibits any any outside agencies or personnel that are not employed by the lottery from having access to our databases, and that makes joint. investigations that much more difficult. So I just want to give you a few examples of what we've been investigating lately and some of the roadblocks we've run into. Uh, we currently have a case
open that spans 4 jurisdictions across Arkansas, where the suspect was able to fraudulently claim over $10,000 from stolen scratch off tickets. Um, another case, it was a theft case that involved a $9000 loss to the state. And every dollar this claimed fraudulently or that we lose due to these crimes is directly impacts the students of Arkansas. Uh, those that might otherwise not be able to go to college without the scholarships we provide.
Um, finally we're also investigating an organized criminal enterprise that was affecting retailers across the state, um, they're exploiting point of sale systems within the retailer's business and at this point we're over $50,000 in losses due to that. I consulted with the FBI, but unfortunately that was under their financial threshold to open a case, and I've even identified a suspect through surveillance at our claim center where he came in to Cash one of the tickets he
stole, but unfortunately again without the authority and the resources, I haven't made any more progress on that. In 24 our division generated over 1700 incident reports, roughly 65 of those were confirmed to be criminal activity that needed to further investigation and ultimately prosecution with another large number that were unconfirmed criminal activity. Potential thefts and other things that we eventually classified as missing. So with this whole bill, I want
to be clear that we're not asking for a police force. We don't need specialized cars or blue lights. We're looking for a few people that are allowed to have this law enforcement authority. Myself would be one of them, um, and the second investigator would also have extensive law enforcement experience and investigations experience, and that's a qualification that we'll outline in policy. And one other thing to remember is that our activities as law enforcement are governed by the commission on law enforcement
standards and training, which ensures strict oversight of any kind of Law enforcement activities we perform or undertake. So this bill might create any fiscal burden on Arkansas taxpayers for non-appropriated agency and we'll be utilizing it already funded and vacant position for the 2nd investigator spot which would just ensure a smooth and cost effective implementation. So this bill not only enhanced public safety, protect the integrity of the lottery and allow us to fulfill our mission
mission with the efficiency. And effectiveness that Arkansas deserves, so I appreciate it again. I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Alright, like just, you know, to say enhance public safety,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:32
so you know, earlier in your testimony you made a
comment about a gentleman here I assume some more little Rock Central Arkansas that was upset because he had a losing lottery ticket, and why couldn't the operator just ask him to leave the premises and then just call the police if he doesn't and you know, have them, you know, take, you know, arrested for trespassing. So, so that is an
Speaker 215
45:51
option unfortunately in Little Rock, especially with low priority
calls, you're looking at significant response times within the building, but you all would have to, you know,
Speaker 10
45:59
agents in the, you know, you know, in your office then. Yeah, yes, we would have we would have agents in our office. OK, so you could only really, you know, respond to calls like in
Speaker 6
46:10
and around Little Rock, you couldn't go to, you know, Fort Smith. Because you got somebody that's upset with a losing lottery ticket. No, no,
Speaker 215
46:17
sir, that would be ideal for them. Our, our primary focus is protecting the people within our building and
then investigating for all people that are upset
Speaker 6
46:27
with a losing lottery ticket. There is a mechanism
to get those people out of the store, um, you know, it's it's fraud. That's the, I mean, anything else, I think, you know, is just like this is what the, you know, the purpose of this is to give you all the tools to help investigate fraud within the. state lottery system. OK. Now, second on um last page line
22. Uh, through 24, just says be considered law enforcement officers by Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and
training pursuant to code, um, have statewide law enforcement authority to conduct investigations related to violations of lottery-related laws or lottery-related administrative rules. It does not give you all any authority beyond that. You see me
going down the road 8 miles over the speed limit, you know, to pull me over and give me a speeding ticket, do you? No, sir. OK. Um, so just As it pertains to the state lottery program that you would not
be taking any, you know, any standardized law enforcement classes that, you know, like, you know, city police officer Mountain home would go to or
Speaker 215
47:29
sheriff's deputy or there are standardized classes that anyone who is a law enforcement officer in Arkansas have to do yearly, but outside of that, no, sir. OK. Thank
Speaker 4
47:38
you. All right, we do have a couple other questions. Senator
Speaker 180
47:41
Sullivan and Senator Hammer. Thank you and I appreciate talking to you
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
47:47
a number of times and understand this. I know on the fiscal impact. There's no physical impact listed. However, you have in your examples listed a number of issues where we're going to try to claw back money.
So do you have an estimate? First of all, wives are no physical
Speaker 215
48:05
impact the fiscal impact to the taxpayer is none just because we're not appropriated. Nothing, nothing that we do comes out of taxpayer funds is strictly out of, out of revenue. Uh, we do have an estimated implement implementation costs of roughly $5000. So
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
48:20
what's the uh fraud amount. Do you have an estimate of what that potential is we're going to be clawing back for our executing any idea what that is?
Speaker 210
48:34
I think it's unclear in terms of the fact that
Speaker 208
48:38
There's a lot of um Ifs on getting a case to the prosecutor's office getting the prosecutor
Speaker 233
48:44
to charge it and then finally getting a
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
48:47
conviction. That's a, what is our potential there? What is the, the, I want it's not really risk, but what's the number that's out there that would be available if we won every case that we're going to prosecutable. I think there's a lot that we don't know, but
Speaker 208
49:05
since Blake and I have been in these roles, we've seen probably at least 100,000. And potentially a potential fraud that, you know, that we could, that could potentially rise to the level of a crime that could be prosecuted. 100,000. And what's your total revenue? At 600 million. Yeah, that's a very small percentage, I would
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
49:24
think. I agree, but if you think about it in
Speaker 208
49:26
terms of how many scholarships that could provide that would be 100,000 freshman year scholarships valid, and y'all don't get a clawback on what you collect, right?
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
49:36
I don't understand the question. You're agency doesn't get a percentage of what you win in court. You know, we, we've had
that in the past where agencies, if they filed suit, they kept the money. In separate accounts. Um, so when you get money back, where does it go? It goes to net proceeds. OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Hammer, for a question.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:07
Thank you. First of all, just on the line 22 to 24. It's that same thing as being a certified law enforcement officer. Yes, sir. I am certified currently. I'm not commissioned,
Speaker 215
50:17
which would come from the agency if this is approved and whomever is hired for the second row will already be certified and experienced, and we've received their commission through us. Right, so anybody that gets hired under
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:29
what this bill would allow would have to be a certified law enforcement officer. Yes sir, that is correct. OK. Would they be able
to do work outside of the agency some, you know, some certified law enforcement officers that work for certain departments are able to moonlight, you know, doing security
elsewhere or something like that. Are they going to be allowed to do that or
Speaker 215
50:50
not? My goal would be once we're, once this is approved and we start implementing our policies, there are certain required policies that I'll have to come up with, but I will not allow. uh, moonlighting outside under our
Speaker 207
51:00
um Under the color of our authority if they want to go work for another department part-time and work under their authority. That, that would be up to them,
but not under the authority of our agency, OK, so it's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:12
going to be your responsibility as an agency to make sure that they stay certified and go through the required courses in order to keep their certification just like a law enforcement officer that works for a municipality or county has to maintain a certain credentialing credentials you're going to, you're gonna. Be the record keeper keeper of that, and this would this allow you then to submit that to I think it's the Academy or whoever it is to make sure that
they stay licensed and the event they leave you want to go somewhere else?
Speaker 207
51:44
Yes sir, that's it's through le the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training, and we have a portal where I will be able to keep all the records and audit their training to ensure they are staying in compliance with everything,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:56
OK, and then last, last couple of thoughts are this. You need this. Because why? I mean, you cited a situation that happened inside low priority call, but this is going to give you the ability to
investigate outside of the office, go to offsite locations and be able to actually do investigations off site that you currently can't do without this. That is correct, sir.
And the reason being is much of our
Speaker 215
52:25
investigation will occur from our office, but by getting this authority, we'll then have access to some of the resources that are reserved just for law enforcement officers, even though we're an investigative division within a state agency,
we do not get those resources. So I'm sorry. I want, so once we are, uh, classified as law enforcement will have access to those such as ACIC, NCIC, uh, a system called TLO and then other investigative tools. OK. And you're going to turn all your, you're going to turn everything over to the Attorney General for prosecution. Is that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:59
the way it's handled currently and that's the way this would be handled. Or you'll be handling your own. I mean, if you're going to be out doing the investigation, are you going to be able to charge and then are you going to be the
one that's going to be prosecuting the cases or is that turned over to
Speaker 208
53:18
the Attorney General? So, um, the Case files would be turned over to probably the local prosecutor's office and uh this bill would not allow for it doesn't address um Any special prosecuting prosecuting authority, that would be handled. Probably by the local prosecutor's office, um, but in speaking with Attorney General
Griffin, he wanted to be looped in and Colonel Haggar wanted to be looped in on our on these investigations, which is why we added um section D2, where the director will report on the investigations that are happening. So that there is a, you know, communication between all the agencies, OK, and the last thing is, do you feel
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:04
that you is part of the motivation behind this is because you feel that in the area that this relates to specifically to the lottery. It is because you possess the skill sets in order to be able
to investigate better than anybody else, say, a prosecutor or anybody else, because you within your agency have the expertise when it comes to the lottery in order to be able to and do the investigations that currently you can't do, but this bill would allow you to do so you can make a more solid case whenever it's turned over to the prosecutor. Is that kind
of the nutshell of it all? Absolutely, sir. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Next up we got Senator Payton and
Speaker 178
54:39
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real simple question, I hope.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
54:47
When you talk about the thefts and schemes or whatever and you put a dollar value on it, you say you had a $10,000.01 or a $100,000.01. Are we talking about the
face value of the lottery tickets or the winnings that were contained within the lottery ticket. The first
Speaker 215
55:04
example that I presented, which was the $10,000 that was strictly the fraudulently gained winnings. That was she took the tickets and received that much, so it might have been $100 worth of tickets and $10,000 worth of
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:19
winnings or you just don't know. That's correct,
Speaker 215
55:21
sir. The, the retailer took quite a while to get in touch with us, so we weren't able to move tickets out of a cashable status. And that's how much she was able to cash by that point.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:34
Arguably the effect it had on the scholarships would have been the face value of the tickets, not the winnings contained. There in. I mean, I agree that the person's guilty of stealing $10,000. There's no doubt if that's what the winnings were. But ultimately the effect on the
On, on your money in your budget would have been the face value of those tickets if they'd been purchased. It's stay stolen. Senator Peyton, it's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
56:02
kind of a double whammy because not only do you not collect the revenue from the sale of those tickets, but you also lose the net proceeds, but you would have been paying that out to
Senator John Payton
Unverified
56:10
somebody. What I guess so. We have a way to move
Speaker 208
56:15
tickets to a stolen status in our back office system. So if we were able, if we've been able to verify that theft in, in a
Reasonable amount of time to do that. Then when she went to claim her winnings, they would not have been able to be paid out. I think I don't want
Senator John Payton
Unverified
56:32
to belabor this point because it was a curiosity question. It's not on the bill. It doesn't pertain to the bill. It's just I wanted to know out of curiosity, whether we're talking about. Winning is claimed or the face value of the ticket. That's all. So appreciate it. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up on
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
56:55
One thing Senator Hammer asked, which is the reason for the bill,
and when we're having conversations about this, uh, We discussed really the physical component. And the fact that y'all carry cash, sometimes large amounts of cash, and that was, that was helpful to me in understanding the need for this, and so I just wanted to give you all an opportunity to to to mention that for the whole committee as well. So we operate a claims center in
Speaker 208
57:20
the bottom of our building. It's the only one in the state, and anybody that has a winning
lottery ticket over $500 or more has to appear in our claims center to be able to redeem or cash in that that ticket. Um, it operates much like a bank, um. And There there are concerns about the physical safety of our employees and also um Citizens of Arkansas that come into our building. For that purpose.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
58:07
I'll just try to go here. I'm sorry. I was just going to request that you consider the ramifications of some of the things they might say here. In public that's going online. We wouldn't want to increase their exposure any. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Centra.
Speaker 178
58:21
Sir Tucker, very good, OK. All right. Do you have any
other questions? All right, see no more questions. Uh, we have anybody sign up to speak for against the bill. Don't see anybody. Senator Dodson be recognized to close
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
58:38
for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think everybody's kind
of heard everything and answered, asked all the questions, uh, this is something that I, I think we can move forward with hopefully and I so I'm closing and I make a motion to do pass. All right,
got a motion from Senator Dodson. I have a 2nd, 2 from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion, no discussion, all in favor. Say aye. Post. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's time. All right
Now It is indeed hammer time. Sister Hammer. Grab your 18,000 bills and go on up to the table. OK And you know, we can start with 209 and 201 just to concur the House amendments there.
And then Senator we can go down to 212 and then we'll go to the uh we'll just go in
order. By all means. 208. I'm sorry. Excuse me, members, 208 and 211. I forgot my readers.
Of course, we know who you all are, but for the record, if you go ahead and
Speaker 259
1:00:25
introduce yourselves and tell us who you're with. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Leslie Bellamy, the director of elections for the Arkansas Secretary
Speaker 260
1:00:30
of State's office. Nathan Lee, chief counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. All
right, all right, Senator, uh, we'll start with the concurrent on House Amendment for Senate Bill 208. I remember you've got that, uh, a copy of that amendment in your folder. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:00:43
this was a recommended amendment that came once the bill.
Um came out of the house, so I'd just like, it's a documented identification card permitted under and it gives a section and I would just make a motion to adopt the amendment, please. All members, you've heard an explanation of
the amendment. Are there any questions from the committee? Alright. I'll give you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:22
Senator Clark, you got a question? You asked Senator Hammer, again, what changed? Sure. Other than I Other than right,
Senator Clark, sorry, I'm going to let Nathan. Address it, please. I
Speaker 266
1:01:46
think line 2 and 3, they removed verification of photo identification. Um, as defined under to to the
words document or identification card permitted under which just aligned the wording to match the exactly the statute
Speaker 267
1:01:58
that was referenced in the No. Yeah, yeah, I'm looking at the amendment
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:02:10
and it doesn't delete line 2. It deletes line 3. And so we're saying at the end of line 2, and then we're repeating a at the beginning of line 3.
And then the Verbiage is identical beyond that. Thank you
Speaker 266
1:02:55
I might have had the the line I said line two, I should have said page 2, line 3, But what was amended was the word's verification of photo identification. Um, and then change to document or identification card permitted under the. Sorry Yeah, so
Speaker 270
1:03:15
it, it was just cleaning up the language
Speaker 268
1:03:20
to essentially match the reference language in the in the statute there.
Yeah, it's my fault. I didn't know it was already engrossed. Thank you. OK Any other questions from the committee? All right, no, I got a motion to concur from Senator Clark. See a
second, 2nd Senator Hammer, all in favor say aye. Congratulations. remember it occurred, we'll go to Senate Bill 211. That's true, you're recognized to proceed with the explanation of the amendment to.
Speaker 121
1:03:57
Senate Bill 21 and it should already be engrossed too.
Speaker 268
1:04:10
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, uh. You man. This was just um I believe it was uh it was a member of the Senate, um,
Speaker 266
1:04:17
asked for this change. Senator Hammer, um. He said that he was willing to make the change and it just accounts for the event that a canvasser, um, prior to, um,
turning in their petition, their affidavit that if they became um deceased or medically disabled to where they could not turn it in that it wouldn't the signatures they had collected part of that point wouldn't be done away with. This is to fulfill the promise I made Senator Hickey
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:43
on the floor because he brought up the point about if if the person died with those signatures to account or incapacitated. This will allow the signatures to still be able to be counted. All right, you've heard that
Speaker 108
1:04:57
explanation, do I get a motion to concur? Some of
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:02
seconded by Senator Clark. Oh, excuse me. Uh, we do have discussion on this, um. Cassandra, yeah, come on up. Yeah
All right, Ms. Glover, welcome. If you'll just give us your name for the record and tell us who you're with.
Cassandra Glover
Unverified
1:05:38
I see you're just here on your own behalf and, so my name's Cassandra Glover. I'm just a
Speaker 140
1:05:43
social worker in White County. OK, and you were recognized I don't have you speaking for
Cassandra Glover
Unverified
1:05:49
or against, or are you just speaking on the Speak against, OK, so good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Cassandra Glover, a social worker in White County, and I'm here to oppose Senate Bill 211 because it creates unnecessary barriers to to direct democracy. It limits
civic engagement and undermines voter participation. We're not under the bill, just the amendment here.
Cassandra Glover
Unverified
1:06:10
I thought I was just speaking for the bill or speaking against the, no, no, no, this is just
the amendment's been engrossed, so we've already voted on the bill. Now it's just the, you know, concur the amendment. So my apologies. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 282
1:06:24
Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Thank you. All right, now we got a motion
on the floor to concur the amendment from Senator Payton, we have a second from Senator Clark. The discussion say none. All in favor say aye, opposed like signed. All right concurred the amendment. Next up, Senate Bill 212. This should be quick. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:00
Chairman, for the encouragement. Could I get the Secretary of State back up here, please. Office
The bill has been amended. The amendments have been engrossed in the bill, so you're seeing the bill as engrossed with the amendments. I'll hit the high points because it is simplified the bill as far as the intent. The intent is to give the Secretary of State the legal authority to do investigations with regarding the areas that are identified in the bill. This would allow them to appoint staff, and they are not asking for an increase in their budget. They believe they have the staff positions already
in place in order to fulfill what this bill will give them the authority to do, and it allows him to go out and to Make investigations and you notice on page 2, the vision may refer in this line 22 may refer any finding or a fault or falsity under this subjection to the Attorney General's office for further investigation and action. And so this authorizes them and gives them great authority to have an investigative arm to go out and
to address in areas that they find with regards to elections intended to bring greater level of integrity to the election process, and if I may, I'll yield to the Secretary of State's office and see if there's anything that I've misspoken or is there anything they would like to add. Um, no, the high points are we just. As Senator
Speaker 266
1:08:44
Hammer is saying, we took out some some language that from the feedback that we got from this committee removed the
terminology within or outside of the state, um made the cleared up the Uh, the process of which investigations were referred directly to the Attorney General's office to then go to the prosecutor's office and then we removed the um Compulsory or the immunity language that was in there previously to no longer exist in the bill. Alright, members, you've heard an explanation.
Senator Tucker, I see that nod. I'm assuming
you've got a question. You are recognized, sir. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:09:27
you, Mr. Chair. So we, we just heard Senate Bill 231 from Senator Dodson and in that bill it discussed that law enforcement and the Office of the Lottery would, they would have to undergo training by the Commission on Law Enforcement Centers and training. I don't see that
Speaker 266
1:09:45
in Senate Bill 212. Am I missing it? No, senator, that's that those processes in training certifications involve certified peace officers or certified law enforcement officers, which this
agency will, it's a law enforcement agency in that it's investigating who they might be investigated, even if You know, a person is exonerated by the investigation it's, it's could be a crime in nature and so that it's a law enforcement agency, but it will not be staffed by the certified officers that would be required to have that training. So I think you just answered my follow-up
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:19
question, which is that uh You know, I asked And
to Senator Payton's legitimate point, don't say anything to Which are anyone's security, but it's not as though the folks in the document validity division of the Secretary of State's office would be carrying cash or anything like that. Uh, no, senator. So no physical component to to to this division in terms of physical safety and security. No, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker.
Speaker 291
1:10:48
All right. Is there any other questions from members of the committee? All right,
see, no more questions. We do have some people to sign up to speak. This will start with
Mr. Jimmy Cavin. The cabin. Uh, Mr. Cavin, welcome back. You know the
Speaker 293
1:11:22
routine. Give us your name. You're with, and then you'll recognize the go. Jimmy Camp with Arkansas First
Speaker 294
1:11:27
News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. Let me get my notes here real quick. Got several things I want to cover. Uh First would be The language state The dark validity division shall be a law enforcement agency. Of the Office of the Secretary of State appointed by the
Secretary of State from his or her employees to investigate the validity of documents filed with the Secretary of State under Arkansas Code Title VII, Chapter 59. So when you jump over to page. 3 at the top. It reads a document determined. By the division to contain fraud or falsity by and here's the key, preponderance of evidence.
Shall be declared null and void. For any local purpose or for any legal purpose overseen by the Secretary of State. Preponderance of evidence. Now that sounds like you got all the evidence in the world. That's the word it implies, but when you look, At the definition of a product of evidence, legal definition. It's a standard by which most, most civil suits. Lawsuits in the US must be proved.
This standard requires That the plaintiff to prove based on evidence and witness testimony presented that there is greater than 50% likelihood that the defendant caused damage or wrong. So let's stop and think about that. Especially if we're going to call this a law enforcement agency because I hadn't seen a law enforcement agency yet that goes by preponderance of evidence. But let's stop and think about that. So the Secretary of State In his opinion,
can say based off evidence that they've gathered, witness testimony. That it is 50.5% likely. That that they have done wrong. That's the bar. 50%. I don't know if a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that uses that. Now I understand we're talking about the definition of a civil suit, right? And I think uh Senator Tucker and Joey can speak all day about
civil suits. But what they're gonna tell you is in the civil suit. The defendant gets to put on a defense. In this case, That does not happen. So the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, can decide that in their opinion, it's 50.1. likely. That something was done wrong and so their opinion, they now get to null and void my signature.
Their signature based off their opinion at 50.1%, and they get to do that. Without the defendant putting on a defense in civil court. That doesn't happen in civil court, yes, you can use preponderance of evidence, but what does the defendant get to do? The defendant gets to defend their self. There is no defense here. So if I'm a canvasser, OK, and I'm Jimmy Cavin and I'm volunteering. And I'm out doing my civic duty.
And because the Secretary of State can stay in their opinion, Based off what they've gathered. That it's 50.1% likely that I didn't follow a rule. They can negate every signature that I gathered, which takes away Every signature they put on there, because in his opinion, 50.1% and I can't defend that. And more importantly, they can't defend that.
That's a huge problem with this. So what we've done is we've taken the law enforcement division. And I've said it before in the last committee. Law enforcement division takes an instant report. Or call for service. OK, and they put that to CID Criminal Investigation Division, right? OK, that division. Investigates And they turned their findings over to a prosecutor. A prosecutor then decides, and I
can tell you it's gonna be more than a preponderance of evidence, and I bet you, Senator Tucker can agree with me on that and Joey will back me up. The prosecutor is going to need more than a preponderance. of evidence And then that prosecutor's going to decide whether they're going to file a charge, and at that point, They do. And then the defendant These people Me. OK, it goes to a court and that way I get to go before a judge and a jury.
To decide the outcome. That's how law enforcement agencies work. That's how prosecutors work. This, we're giving Secretary of State, their sole discretion based on an opinion. So they can make their opinion if an abortion amendment comes, which I'm anti-abortion, we'll be till the day I die. I'm Catholic. OK. I'm absolutely against abortion, but say somebody wants to get an abortion amendment on the ballot.
And let's say that Secretary of State doesn't want that to happen. Well, it's real easy to use this as a political weapon now and the same as in reverse. Say I'm a conservative. You don't get much more conservative than me. So what if I have a liberal Secretary of State. And now they, we've given them a law enforcement agency that they can politicize to express their will and force their will. Over the people. That's a power I'm not willing
to give anybody like that. Uh Let's talk about the cost. Of this The last time the Secretary of State was up here the first time around, they talked about how they got hundreds of calls and 100s of complaints, right? So now we're going to say we're going to create a lot, and this is just one aspect of the cost. So now we're going to say we're going to create law enforcement agency to handle all these complaints and investigate them. OK, so now we're gonna, how many incident reports are we gonna
create now? Based off those calls. Because we're going to have to have a uh instant report, a report of the call, and then we felt an incident report and then we send it to the criminal to the investigative division that's created under this, and they're going to determine if they're going to investigate it, right? So if we've had hundreds, let's say they, let's say they had 300. And let's say out of 300 The CID division of this is going to determine we're going to investigate 150 of those. So now we're going to have to
have people to investigate 150 different cases. And create an investigation file. Right? And so think about the cost on that. So if you're telling me that we can do this with the existing personnel who already have a full-time job and work 40 hours a week, and we're going to put this on them without hiring new personnel. No, you can't put that around. You can't put that round peg in a square hole in a square hole. I mean, you just can't do it. To tell people that's not going to increase cost. No, Houdini can't pull that off.
So let's talk about then the added cost of that. OK, you're taking staff that are already full time working 40 hours a week on their specific job, and now we're going to make them law enforcement officers because you can't just say, hey, we're gonna create a law enforcement agency. Not a big deal, but they're not really cops. There are law enforcement agency, but we're not really cops. No, it doesn't work that way. So now from a training, have you looked at lit? Is any, is anybody on this committee pulled up class? To look and look at the laws
under Title 12 and how many are there? And the rules that have to apply to law enforcement agency and the laws they have to follow. Do you realize you cannot start, just start a law enfment no matter what y'all decide, if you vote on it and turn it into law, you still got to apply for this. It's still got to be proved. Do you realize that to have a law enforcement agency you have to employ a chief of police. You don't just get to go around those Title 12 laws.
Which I probably more than 100 laws applied to this in Title 12, right? So what we're doing is we're creating a law enforcement agency. I said before, and I'm going to say it again, that Does completely away with due process. My due processes, their due process. It throws it out the window. This is America. Tell me, I want anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that
this bill says this is America because it doesn't. This is what other countries do. This is what China does. Because it takes away people's rights and freedoms. If you accuse me of something. OK. And you take it, you say, Jimmy Cain did this, and here's what I've got to show. OK, would you not afford me the opportunity to defend myself against your allegations. Who in here would not do that?
Who in here would think that is fair. Because it's not. So when you start talking about creating a law enforcement agency and telling me it's not going to add to the cost my taxpayer cost? No. No, that's not happening. That's my question. I would ask you guys ask Senator Hammer this question. Has he studied the laws in Title 12 that apply to this. Does he know what's entailed to create a law enforcement division. To say, well, we're going to
have law enforcement officers, but they don't have to be certified. No, that's not the way Cliff sees it. That's not the way Title 12 sees it. So we're going to create this and we're gonna say, OK, we're going to create a whole new division and they're going to be law enforcement officers with the power to investigate this. They're going to have to go to the academy. They're gonna have to get certified. And then we talk about continuing education and continuing training that is required by lifts. I'm a pretty good investigator. I think most people in this room
will agree I'm a pretty good investigator. But I can't go to work at Conway PD tomorrow as an investigator. OK, and I bet you I'm as good as they are. But I'm gonna have to go get, I'm gonna have to go to the academy. And I'm going to have to continue the training. And I'm gonna have to do that, you know why? Because the law says I have to do it. So the Secretary of State, It's time to create a division and tell you That they're really not going to be cops. Well, at that point, why are we saying there's going
to be a law enforcement division because I'll give you an example in 209. This is redundant because in 209, Uh, it's saying the same thing that they can null and void anything, just based off the ponderance of the evidence, right? And that's what it says in SB 209. But it doesn't create a law enforcement division there, so this is redundant language, but now we want to create a law enforcement division. To go further with that, right? Now, I want to ask you something else.
You guys have a committee made up of prosecutors, right? Did y'all put things before to get their opinions on. Has this been before them? Have you all talked to any prosecutor about this? Because I have. And I've yet to talk to the prosecutor that is for this. They cringe. They cringe at this type of deal of using the Mr. Kavin, I'm going to ask you,
as I think we're out of a motion to limit debate. So if you want to, if we can get to the end because we got some other people to get
the point that you're making, um. But if we can start to tie this up to get the members, if you have any questions and we got some
Speaker 294
1:24:20
but, but I would ask this I would ask since it's our time to give a voice. Everybody gets a voice and we can go in those back rooms and everybody can have discussions, and you guys can have discussions for hours about this. Please allow the people. To express their opinions and their viewpoint on this because it's their rights you're about to take away.
Not if we agree with you. No, I'm not saying you don't have to agree with me, but I don't have to agree with you either. OK, but I want, and, and I'm happy to take questions on this. I want somebody to explain to me how you're going to create a law enforcement division, send people to the cabiny, all this training, follow all the laws and until 12 minutes it's not gonna cost me any more money. I want you to explain to me why you can use preponderance of evidence. In these cases, without giving citizens due process. Now, you can disagree with me on that, but I'd sure like to hear your point.
Uh, I will go back to the prosecutors though. This should go before that committee. A prosecutors to get their input. Because I can tell you the ones I've talked to don't want anything to do with this. Uh, so, There I could talk on this all day long, but to Senator Flippo's point, I don't want to deny these other citizens an opportunity to speak. They've signed up to do it. So with that, I'm done. I'll take any questions.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:25:40
Thank you, and I think Senator Clark has a question. Senator Tucker, sorry, Senator Clark Tucker is the one I've got down first.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:25:50
You, you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kevin, your point about preponderance of the evidence. I'm sorry, say again, sir. Your point about a defendant in a civil case being able to defend themselves themselves as well taken. My question is, In a civil case, also, if you lose as a defendant, then you also have a right to appeal to someone else. Yes sir, you do, and that's called due process,
isn't it? I don't see anywhere in this bill that if the Secretary of State's office unilaterally determines By a preponderance of the evidence that your signature should be struck that you have anyone to appeal to. That's the final decision, the way I read
Speaker 298
1:26:24
this bill. Yes sir, and uh I will, and I'll ask you a question. You're a smart guy. Do you see any word
Speaker 301
1:26:30
in this bill word due process is applied? No, sir. Thank you, Senator Clark.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:45
Does the Secretary of State remove signatures now? Sir, does the Secretary of State remove signatures now? Uh,
Speaker 294
1:26:52
now you're asking me a question that I'm telling you I have not researched thoroughly, but I believe in, in uh cases that Secretary of State can challenge signatures or not or, or put them on hold. Now I'm gonna be tell you the truth, I have not researched what they can do on that point. OK, should fraudulent
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:10
signatures be removed, should fraudulent signatures be removed after yes
Speaker 294
1:27:15
sir, after they've gone through due process after it's gone through due process
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:18
and, and it's proven by more than the products of evidence that they're fraudulent, then yes, sir. That was a yes or no question. Well, it's not, no, it's really not, but Thank you, Senator Clark.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:27:32
Any other questions for the witness? Saying none, thank you, Mr. Kevin, for your testimony. Thanks guys. Mr. McCutcheon, we have you next on the list.
If you would take a seat at the table, identify yourself and state who you're with and you'll
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
1:28:04
be recognized. Thank you, Senator Payton, members of the committee, I appreciate you having me here this morning, um. This is an important bill start with your name and who you are. Joey McCutcheon here as a citizen, um. You can for when I woke up this
morning, one thing that kept running through my head is the fact that when, when we lose our rights in our society. We never get them back, and when we create so many roadblocks. That we can never exercise those rights like we're seeing in this process on the initiative process, which I obviously think is extremely important. We never get those rights back and I'm a conservative.
Way over to the right, way over there, um, but I find myself agreeing with with Folks who are sitting on the outside of the rail today, and we We as Republicans control this Senate. Uh, you control the house and you've got overwhelming numbers now. And one day, I don't know when that day will be, but, but I suspect when when my grandkids are coming before this body.
They're going to experience the shoe on the other foot that there will be Democrats in Senator Sullivan's seat. Um, and there will be Democrats here, here, and here, and we will probably wish that we had the right to petition because this isn't just like any bill. This bill is much bigger than any bill. To me, it rises up to the level of something that I spoke on for many years. It's the Freedom of Information Act because it protects our freedom,
so it's the, make no mistake, this is the biggest bill in this in this session in my humble opinion, but we've heard conversations about what's the purpose of the bill. What's the reasons behind the bill. What's the problem as Senator Hammer said earlier, what problem are you trying to fix? And I asked myself, what problem are we trying to fix here because I've heard no, I've heard anecdotal evidence. I've heard it. I've heard several of the folks that I agree with on the anti-abortion folks. I've heard
them come up and say they were deceived, but how many prosecutions and how many convictions have we had for fraud for petition fraud. Um, but the thing that really, really concerns me, and I also read a few passages out of the conscience of conservatives this morning, and the one thing that really concerns me is this is big government. Uh, this is authoritarian government. And we can't get around that
fact. There are no due process in this bill for everyday citizens. I mean, why didn't we put do these folks who are going to be summonsed by this all powerful law enforcement agency, Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer, these people should have rights. They should be able, you should tell them you can bring a lawyer, you can present evidence in your defense. The evidence is going to be by not preponderance, just the
greater weight, it's going to be by the by the criminal standard, because we're losing freedoms. And to me, it's, this is Orwellian. I mean this document validity, it's big government. It's authoritarian. It's the heavy hand of government on citizens because one day I will be before I'm sure I will be before this law enforcement, this Probably uncertified, but we have laws on the books now.
We have laws that are that are killing our freedom law after law after law, and we have agency after agency to enforce these laws. So my final thought, and I hope you'll consider this as is, you know, let's enforce the laws that we have, and let's find the problem because there have been the best I can tell there's really been no prosecutions in the last 10 years for petition fraud and um So let's enforce the law we have
and and I appreciate the time you've given me and I'm happy to
Speaker 256
1:32:40
answer any questions if you have any. Alright, members are there
Speaker 108
1:32:46
any questions for Mr. McCutcheon? Right. Oh, excuse me, Senator
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:32:53
Clark. Mr. McCutcheon, uh, I appreciate you being here today to testify, and I know how strongly
you feel about this, the, and I appreciate the way in which you presented it, uh.
The I would hope that everyone would have that. Same decorum, wouldn't you? Sir, I said I would hope that everyone
Speaker 310
1:33:19
would have that same decorum, wouldn't you? That's what I've seen this morning. Everyone to a person that has testified this morning has had that same decorum I sure would. Yes sir, we would disagree about that, but thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh yeah,
yeah, yeah, I think um, alright, next up we got Ms. Laurie Justice. All right.
Welcome, and if you just introduce yourself and tell us whether you represent yourself and then Miss Justice, you'd be recognized, proceed. All right,
Laurie Justice
Unverified
1:34:08
my name is Laurie Justice, and I'm representing myself. Um, I'm about as hard right as you're going to get. Um, but I have some concerns, and I'm not going to repeat what
Speaker 318
1:34:22
we've heard about the lack of due process that of course is huge. Um, but also, um, I'm seeing this common theme that I'm finding very disturbing, which is weaponizing state agencies. I have a problem
with that. And like I said, I'm as hard right as you're going to get. I am, I was out there fighting the abortion. I was out there holding signs. I was in here when they delivered the petitions, um, um, anti-marijuana and um but I think weaponizing agencies the citizens is wrong, and we're seeing that and I'm finding that real disturbing. Um, we have
President Trump slashing our federal government, but we're building our government and making it bigger here in the state, and I don't like that. Um, I think we've heard kind of the common theme which is you know if it can be done by you, it can be done to you. That's also a concern, you know, if Democrats get control of this state again. What's going to happen? If our government can be
weaponized against us, that's a concern. And I think that's a concern of a lot of citizens. A lot of them couldn't be here today. But I think it's huge. And you know, um, I am a constituent of Senator Hammer. And I have to ask, you know, who are we representing? Are we representing our constituents. Because I, I guarantee you if something like this is put to a vote of the people.
This isn't something that people are good with. I want less government. I want opinion, and again, I'm not going to harp on on the specifics of everything, but
Speaker 319
1:36:20
that's just what I wanted to share with you today. All right, thank you, Mr. Justice. Senator Sullivan, you're going to ask for a question. You know, we're hear
this we the people frequently. Have you polled the people to see if they
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:36:34
agree with you on your statement you just made. No, I have an eye.
Speaker 323
1:36:42
Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Ms. Justice? Alright, see you then. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Next up we've got Davis Hendricks. All right, Mr. Andrews, introduce yourself and tell us
who you're with for the record, then you'd be recognized to
Speaker 328
1:37:18
proceed. I'm Davis Hendricks, and I'm here to represent myself and hundreds of canvassers who I've worked with this summer who were exercising their constitutional right to collect petitions and have been mischaracterized as predominantly folks who need to be regulated more. Uh, and that's, but I want to thank the chair and I want to thank the committee for hearing us and listening and and to
those of you who are paying attention to what we say, I appreciate that. To those that aren't paying attention, that's part of the problem, and that's why people feel the way they do and I think we could run some polls, Senator, and I think we should. I do know that there were polls run before the petitions were circulated. It was an independent poll that was conducted by an out of state group that actually different groups to make sure there was a more balanced representation and on several of the initiatives that petitions
were circulated for 76% and more percentages of the state polled as supporting, and that's conservatives. Liberals, moderates, everybody that you can imagine because that's how the poll was connected. It was not collected from a standpoint of let's go to the people we know who will support us so we can get the numbers to go out there and try to convince people this is what the people really want. So there was a representation that was very balanced, and I think that information can be made
available to you, Senator Sullivan, about how that was done. Um, I represent myself in the hundreds of volunteer citizen canvassers who dealt with harassment, persecution in order to exercise their constitutional right
Speaker 329
1:39:00
to petition their government for the opportunity to bring issues before the people of Arkansas for a vote. As a retired educator for 50 years in Arkansas and having been a legislative advocate for an educational nonprofit of about the last 20 years. I've spent years watching different
legislators from different parts. party, some with majorities, never addressed the direct democracy
Speaker 328
1:39:23
process until this group in the last few sessions have felt a need to address something that's said since 1918, I believe. As a lifelong citizen with significant experience in
Speaker 330
1:39:35
these hallowed halls, building healthy relationships with hundreds of legislators from
Speaker 328
1:39:39
both parties over the years because that's what
Speaker 329
1:39:43
my job required me to do as an advocate for my organization.
This current majority is the first one that's felt the need to limit the people's right to petition their government under the guise of protecting them. I think we all know better what these laws are seeking to do. Having worked with for our Kids group and a petitioning process, I could tell you from firsthand experience that the isolated incidents cited in previous testimonies are the exception rather than the rule. Training of canvassers was extensive and volunteer petitioners worked
hours in extreme heat because they believe their government actually believed in its constitution. I'm here against this bill today because it is one of several superfluous bills that are simply unnecessary obstacles to the people's right to frame policy. When direct democracy became part of our Constitution. It was an alternative to a corrupt leadership that was replaced by the people at that time. It has only been used several times in our history. One most recent
medical marijuana that is resulting in millions of dollars of tax money that this legislature will use to fund bills in appropriations of bills that you're passing during this session. When the people can't get their representatives to hear their pleas for laws that work on behalf of all the people of Arkansas. The only recourse is the referendum system, and these bills are designed to make that process so difficult that the people will give up on the process. Practically, the bill creates
another level, and Jimmy and Joey have taken care of that almost yielded my time to have them come speak some more. The bill creates another level of law enforcement within the Secretary of State's office with no training or preparation. The bill reads that the SOS may designate members of his staff to essentially become law enforcement officers with no training or authority other than his designation. Seems like we only grow the government when it suits our purposes, and those purposes are not in the best interest of the
citizens of Arkansas when it limits their voice. Remember that the petition process is only to get the law on the ballot for the people to vote. These kinds of obstructionist laws imply that some of you simply do not trust the people of Arkansas. And that's the reason it's necessary that this constitutional process not be further encumbered with government expanding law. laws like this one. I urge you to vote no on this unnecessary new bureaucratic expansion of government and embarrassing
effort to limit the power of the people. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks.
Senator Sullan, do you have a question? Mr. Chair, I'd
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:42:30
like to make a comment just on a comment he made, not necessarily on the bill. They made a
comment that he would get me polling information. I'm not interested in
polling information polling information is not the will of the people, and when I hear people sit at the desk, you or others that say I represent the will of the people, uh, I want to know what by what authority
they do that. The authority that allows one to speak for the people it's through the election. process whether it's through the representative democracy, our direct democracy, there's an election and polls have no authority to do anything. And I'm just a little, I'm getting very concerned when people sit up at the table and say I represent the
people. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right. Any questions for me? All
Chair
Unverified
1:43:21
right, Senator Clark, you recognize for a question. They
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:43:28
Mr. Hendricks, I appreciate you being here today. The uh appreciate your testimony. The salt line is because you spoke more. On other bills and you spoke on this bill, uh. That we're not doing the will of the people. And I'm not talking about this specific bill because that you you went way beyond that, that, that we're not doing the will of the people. Mhm
Speaker 328
1:44:00
Yeah, passing this bill, I don't believe would reflect what the people of Arkansas need. No, I wouldn't
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:44:05
say this bill. I said you went well beyond this bill. Oh yeah, equally could have
Speaker 328
1:44:10
applied to the others as well, because I think they're all, I don't think, I think they're all superfluous. I don't think we need them. I think the system as it works has worked well in the past. The courts have been involved in the past. We've got a system that works. We don't need to encumber the process and make it more difficult for the people to collect petitions and make their will know, and the petitions
that are invalidly collected or thrown out. They don't have any impact. So to me it's, it's just a waste of time and money and energy, and I fully believe that some of this will be contested in court eventually, and I hate that. We're going to spend money dealing with more things than solving problems in Arkansas. These are not problems in Arkansas. We have problems that need
Speaker 340
1:44:53
solving, but this is not one of them. We worked together on solving some of those problems,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:00
and you're one of the greatest educators I've ever
known, uh, I appreciate that we'll agree to disagree on something. We have on others, haven't we? Good to see you, brother.
Speaker 328
1:45:09
Thank you. All right, members, any other questions? Right, so no,
Speaker 341
1:45:13
thank you for being here. Thank you, sir. All right. Next up, Ms. Carol Egan.
Speaker 344
1:46:00
Hi, um, thanks for listening to me today. My name's Carol Lee again. I'm here as a citizen of Arkansas. I know you guys are getting tired of me, but you know, we're running out of bills from Senator Hammer on direct democracy, so I'll get a vacation. Um, I'm actually speaking on this specific bill as a retired insurance executive. Uh, insurance companies as you may be aware, Are
you have to deal with fraud all the time, and the two things that we look for when we're concerned about fraud. I Financial gain and Um, span of control. So fraud can be most effectively perpetrated. When those two things are in alignment. So is there money to be gained?
And can the person who's going to perpetrate the fraud, control the whole span of how that could happen. And when I look at something like this where I see one agency responsible for where the petitions get turned in. And The count of those petitions that determination of the validity of those petitions, the calls that are going to come in
complaining about those petitions in, in a perfect world. Hm Where there is no fraud that would, you know, seem like that would work. I mean the canvasser fraud that we're so worried about That would seem like it would take care of it, right? But we don't live in a perfect world. We just had a ballot petition where $30 million was spent on advertising alone.
So there is money to be made and if I'm somebody who so from somebody with a grassroots from a grassroots perspective, we have eliminated grassroots petitions. Let's just Let's just admit that that's the case, and the only ones left are people with deep pockets with financial gain. Uh, to like casinos, like marijuana. So if they wanted to influence
A petition we've set up a perfect storm for that. Because it's expensive to do this, right? It's expensive. You've got to get background checks for all the canvassers. You've got to uh pay uh canvassers now because nobody's going to want to do it for volunteering because it's, you know, they can go to jail if they're convicted of a crime now, and so you've got you've we've created this environment. Well, let's circumvent this decision, this because I only have this one
agency, so this one agency is going to approve my, um my ballots as they come in. They can overlook the cause of complaints that come in. They can, so Do you see where I'm going? We're creating an environment where I, I can get my ballot measured passed by focusing my financial resources just on one little agency, and I don't know how little it is, but I'm one
agency and just a few people who are going to oversee it, and I, I'm not casting aspersions on anybody who's in the office now, but it could it we're creating an environment where that could happen. And as an insurance executive, I would get fired for creating such an environment, because believe me in insurance it would happen. So I would really encourage you before you pass this bill to talk to somebody, and I'm not a fraud expert, but they certainly are out there, and I would
really encourage you to have somebody look at this system that you're creating from an end to end process and make sure it is safe from outside influence. Um, and I would encourage you
Speaker 346
1:50:14
not to pass it at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Egan. Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right,
see you, thank you for being here. All right. Next up, we got Miss Kristen Foster. She's here. OK, and then Kelly, sorry, Kelly
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:50:37
can't read the last name Fugi. So
Kelly Pugi
Unverified
1:51:10
My name is Kelly Pugi. I am a, uh, here's a citizen, but I'm also here. Because I'm a member of the National Association of Social Workers. And just as a side note, I'm also a former. Law enforcement officer, um, in this state. I just want to, if I may, please continue to Make, uh, I guess, put this on the record that I'm opposed to
this bill. This is SB 212, correct? Yes, ma'am. OK. I'm opposed to this bill because I think it. And I will say, uh, the last 33 people I believe. I don't know what their names. I think one of them was Miss Justice. I agree wholeheartedly with and not because of their political Stance because I heard conservative, conservative, conservative, and personally I'm more liberal, liberal, liberal,
but I will say, you know, due process is a big deal. And um I don't understand why. When nationally we're trying to downsize government. Um, here in Arkansas, we're trying to create more of it. Uh, um, I don't want my. Personal, my Freedoms as a citizen to be infringed on any more than they already are. Um, and I don't want anyone
else's to be. Um, I think this particular bill. Uh, increases barriers to voting. Targets vulnerable populations, raises privacy and civil rights concerns. And contra contradicts values, um, values that I represent as a social worker, so. I, I would beg you please to. Uh, put this off, look into it a little farther. Um, get some expert.
I don't know, extra expert advice on is this OK, is this not, you know, because when we're talking about our democracy, that's. A huge deal. And I think that the little things that we do here forward. May make a big difference, not so much in our favor, whether we're Democrat, Republican, Whatever we are. But you know, I'd like to know that. 1520 years from now, now my
grandchildren will have the same freedoms that I do today. Thank you, thank you. Are there any questions from members of the
committee? I don't see anything. Thank you for being here, ma'am. Thank you. All right, Senator Hammer, to go back up and to close for your bill. And if you want to bring Secretary of State's office back up with you'd be welcome to do so.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:54:16
OK, yeah. Mr. Chair, I know it might be unusual or maybe, and I appreciate the chair's allowance to let the Secretary of State legal team joined me because I think there have been some things that have stated that it would be best heard from an attorney perspective in order to address a couple of things that have been said, and then I'll go to my closing comments. Thank you. Appreciate that. Nathan Lee, chief counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. I am
Speaker 266
1:54:49
a lawyer, my background, you know, as a police officer in Secret Service agent and special agent with the US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Inspector General, so I spent most of my career in addition to the legal stuff, investigating fraud, so I've got a little bit of a background in that, and was involved in the considerations of this bill along with the Attorney General's office, who's for the bill as well as spoken to some prosecutors about it. Um, just I want to briefly address some of the things um that were
discussed and appreciate the questions and the concerns brought from the citizens. I think it gives me an opportunity to clarify um some of the things I haven't gotten to speak to yet, um, number one, preponderance of the evidence standard. It is, as a lot of y'all probably know, more likely than not, you know, 50% plus a feather, you know, a lot of people will joke in law school or whatever if you've ever been in a jury. That is still the standard in a civil suit that actually raises
the standard in this instance for the Secretary of State's office right now, Secretary of State, if we're talking about throwing out a an insufficient signature, I think maybe something Senator Clark was getting at the standard there is ascertain and determine. Now, if somebody's signature was thrown out in the petition process by the Secretary of State at his or her discretion, um, you know, there is due process. There's an opportunity. opportunity for those folks, the sponsor and and other people to um appeal that on up to the
Arkansas Supreme Court if they thought that that was done improperly or incorrectly. So, um, The as to the criminal prosecution and someone, we're not changing the standard of that here, that is, it should be always will be beyond a reasonable doubt, Secretary of State's office and this bill will create the document validity division, um, in the instance that activity was found, uh, to be criminal in nature and the evidence,
the Secretary of State determined, um, Rose to that level, um, it would be referred to the Attorney General's office, um, and then it would have to go to a prosecutor to be prosecuted, so this agency would just be the factfinders, and they would present their case, and send it to the Attorney generals like we've got clear lines of of separation and then um Steps and checks that would go before somebody would be prosecuted. So go to the Attorney General's office, they
could conduct additional investigation or make their own determinations based on what they've seen from the Secretary of State, then they would send that to a prosecutor, that could do the same thing. So really you've got not just Secretary of State, but you then you'd have to get two concurring opinions before charges and prosecution was brought, and then the standard would still be as it should be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict somebody of the misdemeanor or felony offense. Law enforcement agency, um, we're not trying to create a
certified law enforcement officers, um, as we said earlier, um, law enforcement agency the statute just says is uh dee so uh by law, this bill would deem the document ability to be law enforcement agency, so it would be um not looking for certified officers, so the um class um specifications and and um comments were inapplicable to what we're doing here. Um, as to some of the prosecutions,
um, There's a lot of reasons for that. I won't get into all that, um, the biggest just being that. Again, as it should be, your sheriff's office in your various, uh, Constituencies uh the police departments, their focus is keeping the peace. So they're, they're chasing down violent offenders, crimes against children, things of those or things like that, um, for that reason, a lot of financial crimes will, you know, sometimes unfortunately, it's
harder to focus on those, um, this is kind of an extension of that same rationale, um, we're just trying to get the authority to take ownership of um securing this issue. And, and kind of being able to look into um complaints or issues with the petition process and then be able to refer that out to somebody else, um, you know, state police, some of these other agencies, they're they're focusing on other kind of peacekeeping missions, um, that they don't really have time
to or the expertise to kind of focus in um on some of these things. So, um, With that, I'll close this just kind of some of the highlights of comments made. I just want to respond
Speaker 267
1:59:41
to. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer, you close for the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I might be
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:59:49
a little bit all over the place. But I'll get to my points as quickly
as I can respecting the time and the fact we've been here a little while this morning. First of all, I don't
know if it was an insinuation or just a tongue in cheek comment about the members paying attention. Thank you to those that are those who aren't. I don't know if that was directed at one particular person, maybe me in particular, but I can promise you I've listened to everything that's been said. That's why I've got 4 pages of notes in front of me because I listen differently maybe than some other people, but I'm listening. Also, the other thing I'm doing is that I'm listening to comments are being made. I'm wanting to verify that when I sit in front of you to make an argument for why you ought to vote for this bill, I can back up what I say,
and one of the things I want to just show you and give you an example of how you need to separate the emotions from the facts, and you need to separate the rhetoric from the facts. I sent Bob McMahon, who is the, you know who Bob is as far as prosecutors. I met with, I met with 4 prosecutors in Benton over lunch after the previous time because they had some real concerns. Bob wasn't one of them, and part of the amendments that are in this bill came because of that discussion where I sat down with
those 4 prosecutors, and what Bob said to me a while ago is I said, do the prosecutors object to amending version of this bill that's before us and the response back is we have no objections after you made that change. We still have our discretion to prosecute or not, we would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to prosecute. I do not know who was talking about. So that's straight from Bob. I'll show you all that if you don't believe me. Second thing is not that I've given you any reason not to believe me, but that goes to the question of the
motive for all of these bills. Why this one in particular it's kind of like we're asking the Secretary of State to do a job, but we're not giving them all the tools in the toolbox to do the job to where or they can build it more effectively. You'll remember back when you used to build a house and you used to put shingles on and you use a, you know, a hammer and attack nail, and back in the day that was. Good enough, or you may remember you used to drive those 16 penny nails and then they invented nail, you know, air guns, you know, where you can put it together, you know, all we're doing is improving on the tools
that are in the toolbox and giving the Secretary of State the best job or the best ability to go out and do exactly what is said in the bill on page 2, a document determined by the division to contain fraud and falsity by the preponderance of evidence of which Nathan's done an excellent job speaking to shall be. declared null and void. They are after fraud and falsity. Now somebody sat at the table and said, or there was the illusion, and one of the testimonies about, you know, what, what is it that they need to do? Well,
you know, in the conversation of all these bills, but one thing that I could see that this would help them do is when you've got over 5000 duplicated signatures when you've got people that even this morning it was testified that checking boxes to give a particular political party preference. And then leaving petitions on tables to where anybody can come along and sign them, and then you've got somebody if you have a really good memory or somebody sent you a clip of something, you may remember that somewhere
in a conversation in a public meeting, it was said, I don't care what laws you pass, it's my job as an attorney to exploit your laws. Now to me exploit is not in the positive column of definition of words, that's in the negative column, but we want to handcuff these guys. No pun intended. We want to handcuff the Secretary of State from being able to go out and be effective at what they're doing so that they can take that, turn it over for prosecution, and Nathan did a great job. This is not like they're going to go
into the wild, wild west stage, kind of the image that has been given. It is a very thorough process, so it's not going to take those who are doing it right, but it's going to help catch those that are looking to exploit the laws that we pass. For reasons other than what the integrity of the laws that we are passing are intended to do, creating more government, I can't tell you in any of these bills where we are creating more government. You heard what they said. They have people that can do that investigation now. You
heard his credentials and granted maybe we won't have somebody in the future that has his credentials, but there will be individuals that can investigate to determine these things so that we can protect and when it comes to we the people in the last 2 or 3 weeks. I've walked into two public meetings, and in each one of those meetings one having as many as 175. They even this morning a group of about 40 that applauded that applauded what's being done down here. They're
not the ones out trying to exploit what we're doing. They're not the ones out here trying to figure out how to worm around or find the wormholes as the word was used one time in a public. They're not the ones that are trying to do. anything to an advantage. They're just out there saying if I'm going to be asked for my signature, I want to make sure it's right. And if it's not, I want somebody to investigate because we talk about, you know, we want to throw around the word about the rights of the people. What about the rights of the
people who did it right, but yet because of those that are trying to exploit the law, do it wrong. What are we doing currently to give the full effect of those that do it right. We're just asking, give them the ability to investigate so they can bring the evidence, turn it over, and then let the legal process work. I know some of y'all probably got your mind made up. I appreciate the vote. However, it turns out, but I did want the opportunity to respond to some of the things that are said and people that are watching can make up their own mind, and they will cast their
own vote beyond what this committee does with that, I'd appreciate a good vote and with that, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to pass. Got a motion from Senator
Hammer to pass. We see a second. Second Clark, any discussion on the motion, Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I promised everybody I've
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:06:02
listened intently to all this while I was appearing to do other things because the other things I were doing, I was doing was about this bill.
I've been totally focused on it since we got here. Even though I already knew I was going to vote against it. Because we discussed it the other day. And the reason I'm voting against it, I, I believe in a vigorous or rigorous investigation of any wrongdoing when it comes to this petitioning process. I believe that it should be. You know, prosecuted and it should be investigated. But I also believe that our founders We
Very concerned with separation of powers. And we have 2 agencies in this state that are set up to investigate and to arrest and and to serve search warrants and, and all that, and I do not believe that every state agency should have that authority. Just like we've seen so many federal agencies been given police powers, even the US Post Office been given police powers.
Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm stupid, but I believe that, that given every agency Police powers is a violation of the principle. That we would have separation of powers. And I'm voting against it. Thank you. going to speak. Thank you. What I would like to point out and give you consideration
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:07:41
to think about is I don't see anything here that indicates arrest powers. What it
says on the very beginning. There he is created within the office of the Secretary of State the document validity division. And yes, you read on down. Secretary of State may designate members of her staff will lead the investigation. It goes on and it speaks as far as law enforcement agency. What we are doing in the way I look at it, whether you agree or not, the way I look at it, what we're saying is Secretary of State's office, you go out and do the
investigation. You determine, you get all the evidence gathered up. You build a case and then you turn it over and what we're doing is we're shifting the burden for a lot of that. ation off of who's going to get it and we're going to put it on them, which they are the they are the experts and they are the ones who are involved in the election integrity process. They are the experts in order to be able to get all that and make a good determination and if it does get turned over to law enforcement, then it takes it
from there. We're just giving them the authority, as it mentions in here to do the subpoena issue administer oaths compelling witness attendance. collecting evidence and requiring the production of any book papers. They are doing the fact finding portion of an overall investigation that is going to be handled by those that have the do right to do the prosecuting and make the determination. So I think that's an important clarification. We're not, we're not turning them loose. We're giving them
the ability to investigate so that they can bring all that and present it and then let it go through. And for that reason, I don't think it's a threat to democracy. and the other things that have been said. In fact, if anything, I think it protects democracy democracy because it allows them to do thorough investigations before anything goes further. All right, no more discussion on the motion. We got a motion due
Speaker 355
2:09:42
pass for Senator Tucker, do you have? Just quickly, the bill does more than just giving them the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:09:50
investigative power. It also gives them the ability to remove signatures of citizens that have signed petitions, and it's an investigating authority
in a way that would be a trial, but it's not set up in the way that trials are because there can, there's no right to appeal to anyone. It's, it's unilateral decision making by the by the Secretary of State's office when it comes to striking signatures of citizens from petitions. So in that case it's not doing the investigating and sending off it. True. That is true for prosecutions, but it's, that's not true in terms of removing
signatures, so I just wanted to mention that. Thank you, Senator Tucker. All right, we
got a motion in a second, all in favor, say I opposed. All right. You're both false Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. All
right, I'll tell you what members, we've got a lot. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, we got Senator Kroll's bill.
Uh, OK, Senate Bill 221. OK OK Yeah, I'll
Speaker 284
2:11:10
take calls. OK. 220 221 or 272. Ms. Cooper has got the chair all kinds of confused over here.
Chair
Unverified
2:11:28
It Thank you. All right. Senator Harmer, you're recognized to present, um. Senate bill
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:11:59
270272. All right. Am I get the minimum gross, OK. All right, so, uh, members, you got the amendment in
front of you. Give you time to look that over. And I'll take a motion to adopt. Uh All right, got a motion center cell on Senator Clark, all in favor say aye, opposed. All right, it's been adopted. All
Chair
Unverified
2:12:22
right, Senator Hammer here to proceed. All right, I think this has been well vetted. This
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:12:31
is the amendment that everybody expressed interest in that would get a favorable vote for the bill, and so that was Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:12:38
to pass as amended, subject to a discussion. Got a motion to pass as amended. Got a second
from Senator O'Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Say none. All in favor. Say aye, opposed. Congratulations bill passes. Members, we will be coming
back 15 minutes upon a. today to hear some more bills that we did not get to, but with that, we are, we are adjourned and I will see you then, Senator Clark.
Agenda
Call to Order - Sen. Flippo
SB208 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO VIEW A CANVASSER TO REQUEST PHOTO IDENTIFICATION BEFORE OBTAINING A SIGNATURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB211 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO REQUIRE A CANVASSER TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE SIGNATURES CAN BE COUNTED; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB231 J. Dotson TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY.
HB1194 Cavenaugh TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF THE INTEGRATION OF HOXIE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB272 Crowell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO PROHIBIT PRE- FILLED FIELDS ON A VOTER REGISTRATION FORM; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 6.
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.
HB1507 Ladyman TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR GOVERNANCE SCORES; AND TO CLARIFY THE EXEMPTIONS FROM DIVESTMENT FOR CERTAIN INVESTMENTS.
HB1514 Painter TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF A "CRITICAL-NEED EMPLOYEE".
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Feb 27, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 21
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 46
Speaker 49
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 74
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 140
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 157
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 171
Speaker 193
Speaker 207
Speaker 208
Speaker 215
Speaker 6
Speaker 4
Speaker 180
Speaker 210
Speaker 233
Speaker 178
Speaker 259
Speaker 260
Speaker 266
Speaker 267
Speaker 270
Speaker 268
Speaker 121
Cassandra Glover
Unverified
Speaker 279
Speaker 282
Speaker 291
Speaker 293
Speaker 294
Speaker 298
Speaker 301
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 310
Laurie Justice
Unverified
Speaker 318
Speaker 319
Speaker 323
Speaker 328
Speaker 329
Speaker 330
Speaker 340
Speaker 341
Speaker 344
Speaker 346
Kelly Pugi
Unverified
Speaker 355
Speaker 284