State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Senator Hammer here, but Representative Underwood, are you prepared? All right. Representative Underwood, if you would head to the end of the table. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee. Um, may I ask, well, first, uh, can I ask for a couple of members members from Secretary of State's office to join me at the table. Of course. And of course the two of you would each identify yourselves for the record, state your name and who you're here representing. I'm Leslie Bellamy. I'm the director of elections for the Arkansas Secretary of State's office. Nathan Lee, chief counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State's office. All right, thank you, Representative Underwood. And I guess I should say for the record, I'm K Underwood, state representative for District 16 and chair, I would ask if it would be OK. I'd like to start with Senate Bill 211 today and then kind of work back to the other bills. I think Senator Hammer, um, plans to attend. I think they're still in session, but if he shows up, uh, I'd ask if it'd be OK if he could join me at the table as well at that time. Absolutely without objection we'll begin with 211. Uh, so members, I, I generally have um some just general comments about the series of bills that we're going to hear today and then more specifically, I'll get to the specifics of the bill. Uh, these bills address reducing fraud and promoting integrity in our ballot initiative process. Uh, and instead of putting all these bills into one bill, we've decided to separate them all so you can each determine uh decide on the bills on their own merits. Um, so, Uh, these bills work together together to safeguard the rights provided in our Constitution, not to undermine the rights in the Constitution, um, and to that end, these have been drafted in consultation with the Secretary of State's office, and they have been reviewed by the AG's office who believes that they will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Um, in furtherance of promoting, promoting citizens' rights. Arkansas legislature has an obligation to help facilitate the ballot initiative process by reducing fraud and ensuring we have a safe, secure, and integrity-driven process. Mistakes in our election process are intolerable and undermine the public trust in our in our democratic process. And in the last election cycle, the Secretary of State's office received numerous reports of canvassers misrepresenting what the ballot measures did, resulting in Arkansans attempting to have their name removed from petition measures. Additionally, there were reports of canvassers encouraging individuals to sign more than one once or sign other people's names to the petitions. Uh, we had a large number of duplicate signatures, but people likely having their name signed on the measure without their consent. The Arkansas Constitution calls a voter's signature on the petition, their vote, and it's critical that we protect citizens' rights and protect their vote in every aspect of the process. So these bills are necessary measures to protect the integrity of the Arkansas initiative process, and I believe they accomplished this in 4 ways. One, they prevent fraud and strengthen accountability. 2, they promote increased transparency, 3, they protect the democratic process and 4, they provide simple and reasonable safeguards. So that's my general comment specifically on SB 211. This bill says that a canvasser must submit a sworn affidavit to the Secretary of State certifying that the canvasser has complied with Arkansas laws and the Constitution concerning canvassing, perjury, forgery, and fraudulent practices. There's a growing issue of fraudulent canvasser's behavior, uh, a basic, and this is a basic step to reduce that behavior by a simple promise that they followed the law. Currently, the Secretary of State is bound to an on its face review rather than the canvasser's conduct, and this bill adds a layer of protection against canvass or fraud by having the canvasser swear under oath that they followed the laws while canvassing. Right now canvasser has to sign an affidavit prior to collecting signatures that says they took all the training and met the requirements of a canvasser, but they never sign anything that says they follow the rules and collected signatures prior to turning in their petition parts. Um, And this does not add an extra sworn statement like the one on the petition parts already. So in short, As I mentioned, I felt like these bills addressed uh helped our process in four ways. Uh, for this, it prevents fraud by holding the canvassar accountable and discouraging bad actors from submitting signatures fraudulently or improperly. To promotes transparency and protects the democratic process. Because it affirms compliance with the laws and adds a layer of transparency, assures that petition signatures have been collected ethically and legally. And third, it's a reasonable and fair safeguard. It's, it's um it has them swear a statement for their own conduct. And with that, I'm open to questions. All right, Representative Underwood has presented his bill. Are there any questions about the committee? Representative Wooldridge are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Underwood. What is the current process or what happens if someone submits fraud fraudulent documentation currently under the law. Currently, if we find duplicate signatures or what we call transcription, which it looks like the same handwriting over and over on a petition. We call those is what we call it, which means that we set them aside and then if the sponsors want uh additional time to look at it and go over it with our staff and we allow for that and um they may get some put back in, they may not, but that's what currently happens with those. So if, if someone knowingly submits some fraudulently though, because you're using the word fraudulent. So someone knowingly submits fraudulent signatures. Is there anything then that happens to the person submitting fraudulent documentation to the state. Since I've been with the state in the past, uh, for the fraudulent signatures that we've turned over to legal. They have chosen not to pursue that. I don't really know why, but they, they've chosen not to go after that because most of the time an opposing side goes after the petition for another reason, so we just never have this last cycle might have been the worst. Petitions we've seen for fraud. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my first question is, is it sounds like you have seen fraud, uh, a lot of times in these petitions, you're, you're looking at potentially 100,000 signatures or more, um, I'm assuming that you do not have the resources to look at every single one of those. So can you kind of tell the process of, are you just taking a small sampling or can you walk us through how that uh how that takes place and uh the, the amount of time that it takes. to look for any fraudulent signatures. Well, you know, we only have 30 days, uh, by law to check the, the original submission, uh, so we have, we usually hire around 300s this time we hired around 90 at the expectation of possibly having 7 measures. So I would like for it to be entirely my staff that's going over that type of supervisor you, but um sometimes I just don't have the staff, so it, it does fall. our temporary labor sometimes. So, uh, so kind of along those lines about I mean, are you checking every signature or are you just checking a sampling of the signatures because of that limitation. We try to just uh check a sampling of what we can and then we, you know, kind of have a training session with our temporary workers on what to look for for transcription, what to look for for looks like a husband and wife, you know, made the wife sign for the husband or vice versa and as well just uh we have it in our program to check and catch. The duplicate signatures if they sign it multiple times, but we, we just Like this time if we'd had a, if we would have had the 7, we certainly would not have been to do a sampling that I would have felt comfortable with. Alright, thank you. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Underwood, um, I'm just just been reading through this and uh I've been asked by other constituents, um, you know, when you start talking about referendums, you've got state referendums and initiatives. You've got alcohol initiatives and tobacco, things of that nature or marijuana. And then you've got local issues, right? So you may have, um, you know, an issue locally that, that might go on. Does this apply just to state initiatives or does it apply to all? 3. It applies to all three. So If it's applying to all three and I'm, I'm just asking, would we not? So everything is done through the Secretary of State's office, but if it's a local issue, right? So let's, let's hypothetically say there's something that uh voters in, in a, in a town like I'm from Bryant, right, and they want something done. Normally they would take those signatures and things to the county clerk's office, correct? Well, they, they don't take them to the Secretary of State's office. Yes, our representatives, they'll take them to their local county clerk's office when it's anything below a state measure, county or municipalities will take their measures to the county clerk's office. And just a little, just a little leeway real quick, um, so would we not need to in this legislation, would we not need to put some, some wordage of, you know, our county clerks because the Secretary of State look over those signatures when it goes to the county clerks on the local issues? No, sir, we don't have anything to do with the local measures. We only do the state measures. So if this applies to all three, would we not need to have something to apply to our county clerks to, to verify just so that we stay in. Stay in law. There are some uh additional legislation right now that's being looked at that's going to apply the same. Accountability for canvassers to the local measures as well as what we do for the state measures. Thank you. Representative Beatty, just a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Let's hear your point of order. Point of order that the bill before us deals strictly with the canvasser and the requirement of an affidavit to be submitted by the canvassers. So I, I would like us to limit that discussion to just this aspect. We've got two other bills to hear and we're going through the whole process of what's going on, what we need to be addressing is a bill that's on the table now. All right, Representative Beatty's made a point of order. It points well taken, uh, members if you will. I try to keep the questions limited to Senate Bill 211, which concerns the affidavit and uh also for those who are signed up to speak for and against the bill, just be mindful that we're hearing Senate Bill 211 and so those of you who will be recognized to speak for and against here in just a moment, uh limit your remarks to just Senate Bill 211. Related to the affidavit requirement. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Underwood, my question is a follow up to Representative Wooldridge's. Uh, so we, you walked us through Leslie a little bit of the process of um if you currently suspect fraud that you turn it over to legal and they decide what happens. Can you walk me through if we add this requirement of an affidavit, how does that change anything on the back end? In other words, wouldn't we still just be submitting the complaint to legal and letting them decide what to do moving forward. I would kind of like to defer to, uh, our chief legal counsel, which is also a Deputy Secretary Nathan. Sure, yeah, um. Currently, the affidavit that's on the petition parts that get signed with each 10 signatures that get turned in. That is just a testing to the fact that um a canvasser witnessed the signatures, um, and currently a canvasser has to sign something saying that they um meet the requirements and that they've taken the requisite training and all that stuff to um be allowed to accept signatures, but there's nothing um at the end saying that they followed the rules, um, related to canvassing, and so this is just a common sense bill just saying that somebody attest to the fact that um they followed the rules and didn't commit any fraud in the process of taking those signatures. Well, I understand that, but I think I'm not sure it's quite common sense given the reaction to it. I think reasonable minds can differ, and here's what I, here's what my question is, um, just to reiterate, I think As it stands, if there is the suspicion of fraud, that's already a crime under Arkansas law, right? And so that is why it is currently under the, the current process, reported to the legal department to see if they would like to pursue it. My question is legally, how does a canvasser having signed this affidavit change that process or do you think it would make them make legal more likely to pursue it, um. This doesn't Create a new criminal offense, right? It just adds another requirement for the canvasser. So how does it stop fraud is my question. I jump in here real quickly. I'll let Nathan speak to any of the legal processes on it, but what I would say to answer your question on how it stops fraud is if you have to sign an affidavit, a sworn statement saying that you did not commit fraud. I think that deters fraud. That's what you. Can you expand a little bit on why you think that? Yeah, I mean if you have to sign a sworn statement stating that you didn't commit fraud. I think that's going to deter bad actors from trying to get uh signatures improperly and Nathan, if you want have anything to add. Yeah, I was just gonna say. Going off that, it, it speaks to the, the intent part of the, you know, one reason that um it can be hard to prosecute cases like this is because it's, it's really hard to prove intent. You can always um uh or oftentimes you can uh make the defensive mistake or that you weren't on notice and, and this affidavit process kind of takes that opportunity away from you, put you on notice that it's a serious um government document and serious process and that there could be consequences from your actions. OK. Representative Collins recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think it was you, Representative Underwood, who earlier said something along the lines of your signatures, your vote when it comes to these, is that right? I want to put words incorrectly in your mouth. Is that right? OK. So and I think that kind of gets to uh my question, which is that this is in a lot of ways an expression of a person in a democratic process and we would effectively be taking that expression away from a person. And, um, for failure to submit this affidavit by a canvasser, and when I uh look at the other reasons in that C section 7-9-126C that we throw out signatures and they shall not be counted for any purpose. They all seem to get at, uh, it's not an original signature, it's not the signature of the petitioner, it's illegible. Some sort of defect with the signature. Or the information provided in connection with the signature. This is not really a defect of the signature. It's a valid signature, could be a valid signature, but we would have another reason to kick it out having to do with the canvasser's other actions outside of collecting that signature. So is this the only um instance in which we would Be doing that denying someone their vote, which you said for uh something other than the validity of the signature and the information being given by the individual who signed the petition. This bill, it focuses more on the canvasser rather than the signer and like you're saying right now, if there's some insufficiency with with the signature if we're able to determine that in our current review process, it gets cold, I think is the term that's often used or, you know, kicked out, if you will, for that one individual signature because of some deficiency, but this would focus on the canvas or rather, and so if um it was deemed that the canvasser had intentionally committed fraud. or um some type of intentional misconduct in their um canvassing process only then would it be possible that signatures would be removed. Well, you know, not necessarily because they may not have committed fraud. They just maybe didn't submit the affidavit. So we're talking about a piece of paperwork, not necessarily fraud, but even beyond that, wouldn't you, I mean, isn't it correct that it could be a perfectly validly obtained signature with all the proper information. Perfectly legible, not a duplicate, and that person's expression of what they wanted to do would not be counted for something having nothing to do with that person signing. Well, we currently, we have several rules that that have to be followed, but even now if there's an insufficiency with, you know, the petition parts or whatever without a signature, those, those um votes won't be counted now, so, um, you know, People are going to have to follow the rules to get the signatures counted, but this, this bill wouldn't change that fact that already currently exists. Not in these other seven items I'm looking at and see, but I, I appreciate that answer and the other thing I wanted to ask is, is there a cure opportunity for somebody who, um, you know, whose signature is thrown out. Based on this, yes, there will still be a cure period if deemed necessary during the review process for this on this specific bill if your signature is thrown out for this lack of affidavit, will they have an opportunity to cure. There would be an opportunity for the sponsor to cure. Yes, OK, but not for the individual whose signature is. thrown out for reasons having nothing to do with the validity of the signature. There's still gonna be a a cure period, um it's just another opportunity for the sponsor to go back out and try and get more signatures for 30 days. Um, I think that would apply to any reason that some signatures weren't counted. OK. I have a question based on Representative Collins's question. Sir, are you saying that if someone signs the affidavit and It turns out that maybe there is some allegation of fraud. They can sign, resign another affidavit or somehow try to cure the fact that they signed an affidavit in error. No, Mr. Chairman. Uh Right So when you refer to the cure period, what exactly are you referring to? I'm referring to another 30 day opportunity for the sponsor to collect the requisite signatures, so. Let's say you had to get 100,000 signatures and it was deemed that you had 30,000 short for whatever reason. You got 30 days to get 30,000 more. But in terms of the affidavit, once someone has signed the affidavit, they're stuck with their signature on the affidavit verifying that they didn't engage in fraud, forgery, etc. Yes, Mr. Chairman. OK, thank you. Representative Bennet, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, what is a true affidavit and why not just the regular affidavit. That's It's just a good faith affidavit, it's. Um Tomato tomato, and who determines whether if it's true or not. The Secretary of State does which doesn't change how the process works currently. Do you have another question? Representative Bennett, OK, go ahead. Sorry, um. Where can the people see the claims of fraud? Is it public record? Represented in it, yes, they can uh contact uh elections division at any time we'll let them scan, uh, we've had several, um, and I think that their sponsors here today, they would probably testify to that, that we let them scan anything that we've called, we'll let them scan any of the affidavits they're allowed to view them as well and set meetings with us to try to amend or cure if there was a problem with any of it. We're always welcome. The sponsor came back and work with us. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you. Just to circle back to Representative Collins's question. About the cure periods. I think his question was about if you are an individual signer of a petition and your signature is not counted because of some failure on the canvasser's part, not your own fault. Some fault of the canvasser. There is no, you are not notified, you don't know that your signature hasn't been counted, um, and I hear your response being that the sponsor has the opportunity to go back out and get more signatures over the next 30 days if it meets a certain threshold, um, I'd, I'd argue that those are very different things, but even given what you said about the cure period, um, is that cure period, that 30 day cure period in law anywhere? Yes, Representative, um, it, it is that that during the reprocess, if it's deemed that it's, it's necessary, then then it is 30 days by law. Yes, Representative. OK, thank you. Representative Bennett, did you have another question? You're recognized. Thank you. Um, back to the question I asked before, um, where can people find the claims for the allegation of fraud, not the cure signatures. They would have to, you know, contact our office though we don't have those on any public website because it's, you know, it's people's signatures, it's their personal identification information, but if they'd like to look at the examples of, uh, you know, we could pick out last time, we have no scanned in, we could show them where transcriptions happen, um, transcription was a big one in the duplicate signatures are sometimes as much as signing 15 or 6 times. Uh, those are the things. that we found in the last, uh, last year's petitions. All right, seeing no further questions, uh, we do have another question. Representative Wright, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is probably a question for the Secretary of State's office, but what will the affidavit look like? I assume it's just probably a one-page. Document that the canvasser will sign a testing that they followed all of the state laws regarding perjury, forgery, fraudulent practices, etc. in the procurement of signatures, is that? Yes, representative, you got it straightforward, just saying you followed all the rules, regulations and laws regarding canvassing. OK, so all this bill does is it was is that it would require the canvasser to sign what is essentially a one page document, attesting that they followed all of the laws. Yes, representative, once they're done with all their signature gathering. OK, um, as a follow up, so, so, to follow up on the topic that Representative Annett raised, which is the um the issue of, of fraud in the process. So in, in any of these, uh, my understanding is that in, in historically, if you go back to the data that I have is going back to 2016. If you go back and look at the percentages of signatures that are turned in and the percent of those that are found to be Invalid that in on any given issue, there is somewhere in the range of 20 to 40% of signatures that are typically found to be invalid. Is that, is that been your experience, Ms. Bellamy? Yes our Representative Ray, that's, that's pretty much for every cycle that we have and most of it's the same issues over and over, the duplicate signatures, the transcription, uh, different things could get a a page called if it wasn't notarized and turned in if it didn't have the full text of the measure on the back, we would call that. So there's several things besides just the signature being invalidated that could get us to where we call a page of signatures. For example, in, in 2016 on the medical marijuana constitutional amendment. Does it sound right that 30% of those signatures would have been uh invalid. I would say that's probably close, uh, and that's 2018 on the minimum wage initiated act. Does it sound right that maybe 26% of those would have been invalid or in 2020 on the redistricting amendment that Somewhere on the order of 33% of those might have been inaccurate. Yes sir, that, that they run all most of them run about like the 30 percentile that they're, they're invalid. So my question for Representative Underwood would be, you know, do you find it in what other, in what other area of American life, would we find a failure rate of 20 to 40% to be acceptable. Would it be acceptable, for example, if a doctor lost 20 to 40% of their patients. I would say no. Would it be acceptable if a bus driver crashed on 20 to 40% of his bus routes. No Representative. OK, thank you. And I would just add, I mean, obviously with this being the our election process, it's extremely important that the integrity of our process uh is sufficient. Uh, so that way people have trust in that process as well. Representative, uh, if I may, I might add that the problem with the fraudulent signatures, the duplicates will catch that and the Secretary of State's office, but it does allow petitions sometimes to get through that are not valid on their facial count, which is that initial count because we don't check that until we've got to, if we know if they have enough signatures to even be checked as far as the signature validity. I, I don't know if I made myself clear, but it helps them make their initial count. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. Uh, we just heard 20 to 40% failure rate, um. I think this question is probably for you, Leslie, um, of those 30%, you know, roughly that you were just talking about, um, I am assuming 100% of that 30% is not fraud, right? It's not due to bad actors. No representative Clowney. In fact, you know, I feel like having worked in this for years and years as far as petition goes, most of, I think the sponsors have good intentions, especially the grassroots sponsors, I think grassroots groups have less of an incentive than the paid canvassers do to cheat, but it is that portion that I think part of this legislation is trying to get to the portion of the voters that feel like they're being misrepresented by the fraud. Uh, so the bad actors are, are causing a need for something to be done. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, the way I looked at this bill when I read it, um, representative, um, Underwood. I read this bill that this process um and and all the emails and phone calls received that we're attacking direct democracy. And the way I looked at this is this bill is vitally important because of the importance of the role of the canvasser. Uh, I've heard members talk about uh the calling of signatures, uh, And this ballot initiatives are important because we want to hear from our, our constituents, but if you've got a bad actor in, in the role of canvasser, their actions could disenfranchise and call. 1000 of Arkansans uh vote or signature on a ballot initiative. So is the intent of this piece of legislation to stress the importance of a canvasser in the ballot initiative process and how vitally in that important that is for all of us for this process to work smoothly. First, I appreciate that. Yes, absolutely, that's true, and I think um I'll just point out and, and, you know, I can't predict what he's going to testify here today, but I think you're going to hear some testimony today of people who were misled about what they were signing and they had some some issues with that and so that's what we're trying to to stamp down on as as deter that fraud and eliminate mitigate that fraud. Thank you, sir. This to me, this is the easiest of the lift out of all the bills, and I'm, I'm just gonna encourage all the members to vote for this, this protects the ballot initiative process and everyone that puts their name on a ballot initiative. So I'll be voting yes for this. Thank you. And, and Chairman Gasma, real quick, I just want to, there was a question asked earlier from uh Representative Hak about what these applied to and I think uh we, Nathan spoke about what they apply to. These are just statewide initiatives, so I just wanted to make sure that was clarified. All right, thank you, Representative Collins. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that 20 to 40% number, how do we know that that is the number? We run data on every petition we do and we run it the entire time through, so we, we know from when we start their initial count and when we started actually verifying, um, my assistant director Josh Bridges and other staff run the numbers that tells us what the validity rate is. So we, most of the times we'll know as we get closer to the end of the petition if it's gonna make it to the cure or make it to the, the full count or not at all. Because we run those those percentages all through the process. So you know because you caught the signatures as having defects. The signatures having defects. It could be that the measure, uh, you know, whole pages of signatures might have been kicked out. I can recall one, I can't recall what the petition was, but one significantly had so many pages of where they gathered signatures with the full measure was not turned in on the back. We'll call for that as well. I guess my, my, my question is you guys are catching all this, and that's how we know about the 20 to 40% and you guys are part of the process, so they're not failures. None of these are failures because you are part of the process, right? Yes sir, we catch it on the back end when we know that they've had enough to be counted, but it does allow petitions to get through that are not technically valid because of all of the duplicate signatures and things like that. They meet that initial count when they really weren't supposed to get that initial count. I understood that's one that's one phase of it, but all these 20 to 40% failures, they representative already referred to are in fact not counted because you caught them. We're hoping we catch all of them, yes. OK. Do we know how many y'all don't catch? Well, we know for sure pretty much we catch duplicates because our program is designed to catch that, but I would say that due to probably the temporary labor, there's probably transcription, uh, like that type of thing that probably gets through that we never look at as far as the Secretary of State employee, but we have zero evidence of these because we don't know about them. Right, all the 20 to 40% are caught in the process, which you're part of and there's none that we know of that are not caught, right short of going through back through every page of, you know, thousands and thousands of pages. I'd probably never know that part of it, OK, and another I'm, I'm sorry. I'm just It could be higher. The amount of fraud could be higher. We just only catch what we catch. I like that. And then the other thing is if this bill passes, and I understand that we're talking about the importance of it and and it'll undoubtedly have some effects, but you'll still have to go through that process and there will still be duplicates and they will still be signatures of problems, right? So that won't change. It's never changed since I started the process. No, sir, it won't be changed with this either, will it? I mean, we'll still have to do all this and still have a large. number that we're catching. I think that this would just deter a bad actor at the time they realized they have to sign that affidavit to possibly say, you know, I didn't follow the rules of the laws, you need to pull my signatures out. I think that's what this is intended to catch. Thank you. Representative Anne, you're recognized. Thank you. Um, does the new canvassers affidavit has to be notarized. Yes, Representative. Thank you. Representative Ray. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is a question for Secretary of State, probably Ms. Bellamy, um, how long does the Secretary of State's office have to review signatures once they have been turned in. We have 30 days, no matter how many signatures, no matter how many petitions from the the last day is usually when the sponsors turn in and we have the clock starts for us right then. OK, so you have 30 days to review the signatures on a proposed constitutional amendment. How many signatures are typically turned in. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of anywhere from 101 to 130, 150,000 turned in for one and so if there were 8 proposed constitutional amendments turned in or 10 proposed constitutional amendments turned in. It's not unfeasible that you would have in the neighborhood of a million signatures turned in that you would within 30 days, your office would have to review to determine the validity. Is that correct? That's absolutely correct. OK, and so, I think it's fair to make this point and you, you tell me if you agree, um. When you have a million signatures in a 30 day span that you have to review, there's a limit to what you have the personnel and the capacity and the resources to screen for and so it is incumbent upon the individuals gathering the signatures that they turn in uh as close as possible, as close as humanly possible to um an accurate. number that are that are actually correct. Yes, sir, that's very helpful to us. Uh, I will say that a lot of times that's not what we get, uh, and we, I have 12 employees and we, like I said, we hire 300s, we hired 90 this time because we were trying to run 3 shifts all day long because we had the possibility of having 6 or more turned in, but we, we do the best we can, I think with the amount of staff we have and with the amount of time. And so it's with those limited resources that you're able to identify the really unsettling percentage in each one of these measures that gets turned in that's not, not even valid. I think that uh our staff does an excellent job and I've found in the past a lot of times that we have very good temporary employees and we actually have very good program that catches most of those duplicate signatures. If all the information's kept, it'll catch whether they did it, you know, 567 times that they signed it that duplication will be caught. OK, thank you. Representative Long get recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I was wondering, uh, about having to sign the affidavit, would that aid in prosecuting later as far as rather than just catching somebody, uh, having the additional information that they had signed that they did not did not break the law or uh break any of these rules. Represent long no, yes, I think that's accurate, and I think, uh, Nathan kind of spoke to that earlier. I don't know if you want, if you wanna elaborate more on that, but No, I agree with you, Representative Long, the answer is yes. I think it can, it can aid in a prosecution because it can part of um prosecuting someone on a statute like this you're gonna have to prove the criminal intent, um, in the action as well as the action, I should say, and um a signed affidavits such as this as this gets to that intent because you're put on notice prior to it. Just to follow up on Representative Long's question, so would a charge in a case like that be something like false swearing or what exactly would the charge be? Would that be a felony or a misdemeanor? It would probably be false swearing, it could be um forgery in it in that if it was forgery, for example, it'd be deffelony or depending, but it would be felon, we're talking about a felony. Yeah. All right, thank you very much. Any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing none. Thank you, Representative Underwood, uh, we have several individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill. We're going to begin with. And again, I would ask all of the Individuals who signed up to speak for and against the bill to limit your comments to the bill that we're specifically discussing, which is Senate Bill 211. And so first we have against the bill Veronica McLean. Ms. McLean, if you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization who you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to uh present your remarks. Hello, my name is Veronica McLean. I am the executive director of Capes, Citizens for Arkansas Public Education and Students. Um I need to make it clear that my testimony is meant to be heard altogether from all of Senator Hammer's bills, and so I'm just gonna go ahead and go with what I planned, because based on the way that testimony was given in the Senate. I'm gonna have to do it this way. Representative Rose, objection, Mr. Chair. Is that a point of order? Point of order. What's your point of order? Objection violates what you just stated that testimony should be on the specific bill that we're hearing at this time, Representative Collins, I would just say if she hadn't said that she could have spoken on whatever she wanted to speak about. I don't think that it's on all of them. All right, I Representative Rose had a point of order. Recognize Representative Collins because I thought maybe he had a An additional point of order, but I, I agree with Representative Rose's point of order that your hell we are hearing Senate Bill 211, which specifically concerns the affidavit requirement of canvassers and so I would ask that you limit your remarks to that we're going to take each one of these bills individually and so if you have comments related to the other bills, and when we get to those bills, you'll certainly be recognized to present those, and I do note that you have signed up to speak on. Uh, the other two bills as well, but since we're discussing specifically Senate Bill 211, let's keep our comments to those and so, uh, you're recognized to speak on Senate Bill 211. I don't understand that. How are you trying to separate these when they all pertain to the same process. Well, this, that's uh. That's the prerogative of That's my it doesn't make any sense. Well, I appreciate your opinion, but you're recognized to speak on Senate Bill 211. OK, and then I can come back up later? Absolutely, yes. That's a cute little game. OK, Um, so, With the affidavit. Um, will the state be paying for the paper for the affidavit? For grassroots organizations. Yeah, OK, probably not. So this is an additional sheet of paper. It's an additional notarization that needs to happen, um, with the affidavits, when you are. Turning in a petition. You already have to get a notarized signature. An affidavit won't make any changes. This is just an additional step to try to throw out good petitions and the voice of the people. I'll come back up later and discuss the rest of it. fun game. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. McLean for your remarks. Next we have speaking for the bill, Ms. Vicky Parker. representative Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Oh, I just had a question for our, our person testifying, but I will hold off. All right. Ms. Parker, if you would, uh, state your name, identify yourself for the record in any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Yes, I'm Vicky Parker and I represent um Pregnancy Network across the state. We do, we were out in our position, of course, of the abortion amendment. Ms. Parker, before you go any further, it's my understanding that you gave a handout to staff that you asked to be presented to the committee, that's not been passed out yet. So before you begin your remarks, let's let staff pass out. Uh, the handout And uh As soon as the committees had an opportunity to receive that and review it, then you'll be recognized. OK, thank you. It's true. So everybody should be able to see that. I have it. You can probably go ahead that way. right. Oh That Wis. I. All right, Ms. Parker, and again, I'll remind you we're on Senate Bill 211 related to the affidavit requirement for canvassers. You are recognized to present your remarks related to that specific uh bill. Point of order. For Representative Collins is here your point of order. This handout appears to be uh statements from other people who are not testifying, or is this proper? You can consider it for what it's worth. I'm going to let Miss uh. Parker present her remarks, OK, Ms. Parker, you're recognized. OK, to clarify what you have in front of you is an affidavits that was turned into the AG office, so actually they are at the AG office. I start with the first one, and this was a uh pastor that was at athletics, uh, Arkansas Athletics Outreach and and Rogers, Arkansas on February 2nd at 4:20 p.m. as I approached the front desk, a teenage girl asked me if I could. If I had uh time to sign the petition to ban luxury tax on diapers, feminine products. I asked to see the amendment and they were um they were wanting to have the uh have for the ballot vote the team girl then directed me to a QR code, but the adult woman next to her said, oh, it's not written yet. The lawyers write it after signatures have been gathered then I commented that I'm not signing anything that I can't read. The second one is uh one that was just told, um, again, I felt like a misrepresentation. And that was given to only part of what the amendment was for and I'm gonna stop you for just a second. There's been a point of order by a member of the committee Representative Clowney in my 3 terms plus here, we have never allowed folks to sit at the end of the table and read statements from somebody else other than themselves. So I would just like to reiterate Representative Collins' point of order. This is highly unusual. So, so I understood Representative Collins' point of order to relate to the handout that was given to the committee. I understand your point of order is related to Ms. Parker's remark. And so Ms. Parker, with regard to your remarks, uh, let's try to keep those. The committee has your hand out. There are certainly free to review that and everything that's in it, but let's try to keep your remarks to your personal experiences and uh again your uh. Your support for this particular bill, so I sure will. Uh, my witness was as we were on the line, um, and we were obviously out there opposing the abortion amendment across the state and so we witnessed them, I witnessed them, not uh offering them to sign the to read the abortion amendment to be able to, um, they didn't read the title of the mime, they represented as uh reproductive women's reproductive rights and when Uh, what was in the amendment I always had the amendment in my hand, uh, that was downloaded, uh, directly from the other documents and had it highlighted in places that were not um that they didn't, the petitioners, canvassers didn't want to be read and I just asked them to that if they did they know what was in the amendment and I was and of course the canvassers would say, well, she does there's. No way to know what she has is true, and I just simply said, I don't mind flip yours over and let them read both. I don't mind that at all because mine looks just like yours, it's just highlighted, um, that was one of the things that one of the other um misrepresentations that happened was I actually had an attorney in Cabot that walked the uh that was there in in opposition of of the not of the abortion amendment but for the abortion amendment. And so as I read. that without limitations, uh, that we, uh, that were stated in the amendment, he said that doesn't, that's not what that means, and so I said, well, actually it is what it means in all dictionaries and you can Google it, um, and that is what it means, so, uh, we had many times that that was done, and we had uh people who, uh, when they came up on the on the um Actually had some people from Little Rock that I guess was called up there. I don't know how they got up there, but they were called up there and the altercation to um try to cause an altercation and um and so we didn't take the bait, we just stood there and let them do what they were doing. And um but we later found out that they got paid more money if we had taken the bait, but we didn't, so, um, the, uh, the abortion amendment across the state we were there so there were people all the way across the street. Not all of them can come today and be here and sit at the end of the table. It's quite a, quite a travel for all of them, and there's multiples they were in every county in every part of the state and here's what they, uh, so we got these, uh, these testimonies from people all across the state. The bottom line here is this we want that we want this to be a um a process that the integrity is held. It doesn't matter which side of this, which side of the aisle that you're on because it just so happened that we were there to witness it across the state, but if it was initiative for something else to go on there, typically, you don't have that. It just happened to be that way because we were um we were against the abortion amendment they were for it and that was the American way, uh, but if we're gonna do it, then we want to do it with the. one of integrity, where the amendment is read where the people have the opportunity to read it, not what I witnessed and not the misleading language that was taken in my presence. Um, and so we just want I'm for the I'm for these amendments for that reason because I think it, I think it serves both sides of the fence. I don't think it's um lasts for more on my side or or and less on theirs. I just believe that the integrity and for this um um this bill is important and so if we are all following the law, then there's no reason to be afraid. uh, have a problem with it because they would want us to do the same thing as we would want them to do the same thing, regardless of what the initiative is. I'll take questions. All right. uh, thank you, Ms. Parker. Representative Wright, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Barker, during the last election, uh, season, I received a lot of calls and I listened to your testimony in the Senate, so I'm gonna ask you about something you mentioned down there. Um, you mentioned an instance of petitions being left on a table in a storefront where um they were just left unattended. They were sitting out for people to sign, presumably customers that wander into the store and might see it and decide to sign it with no one attending it. Is that what this picture is on exactly what that picture is that's of the olive bloom in Northwest Arkansas that and uh that was also an area in Northwest Arkansas and it did go. kind of close to the end of it. They really got more prevalent with it, but also asking telling people that they can sign multiple times that was witnessed multiple times, but what you're seeing right there, uh, is where the clipboards were just left. There was no one around and of course that's not allowed. The teenage girl that's in that's uh that was done multiple times. There were multiple times when teenagers, uh, in El Dorado was carrying the clipboards around the parking lots and Um, so again, they can't, they're not allowed to do that. OK, thank you for that answering that question. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just, just to reiterate what you said there, those actions were not allowed by current law, right? My understanding is teenagers are not allowed to carry a petition. So regardless of whether this law passes or bill passes or not, what happened here is not allowed already, right? Excuse me, regardless of what happens with this bill, these things that you're describing, which I agree shouldn't have and are not allowed already. Yeah, that's, that's my understanding. They're not allowed already. It's already in the law. Got it. Thank you. All right, seeing no further questions by the committee, Ms. Parker, thank you for being here. I just want to say you're also signed up to speak against or for, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 207 and 208. So if you want to stick around, you'll be recognized, uh, at the appropriate time. Thank you. Next we have to speak against the bill, Kristen Stewart. Yeah Miss Stewart, if you would, uh, identify yourself, stating the organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Yes, my name is Kristen Stewart, and I am here just as a citizen, I did work on or volunteer as a canvasser in several of the amendments. Um, so, uh, I've heard a lot about people saying that they were tricked into signing. Um, this is the abortion amendment and in big bold letters, it says an initiative petition to or prove or reject the Arkansas abortion amendment. Um, if somebody signed this without understanding what it was, that's on the person who signed it. Um, I've heard a lot about people saying the pink tax, um, was being misrepresented as being the abortion amendment, but the Attorney General of our state may sure that the word abortion was in the title. Um So that's just um one fact, um. So in in regards to this bill, um, All of the, all of these laws are already in place. The process already works. They've said, 3030, 40% um co rate, um, All of these requirements, um, with all the other bills, just want to make it more cumbersome upon the volunteers, um, make it less likely that people would volunteer their time, making it harder on volunteers and not as hard for one to have all the money. But I'm signed up to speak about other bills as well, but just on this one. Stewart, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. OK. All right, seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Next we have For the bill, Melissa Robbins. Ms. Robbins, I just want to remind you, like we have the other witnesses we're discussing Senate bill. 211, which relates to the affidavit requirement for canvassers. And so if you would try to limit your remarks to that specific issue, and again, if you would identify yourself for the record any new organization you're here representing and then you're recognized to present your remarks. Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Melissa Robbins, and I am here representing Hope Place Fordyce and here as a citizen, um, bringing up honesty should be a standard. The laws are already in place against forgery and and all that those laws are already there, so having someone. sign an affidavit just to simply say I'm gonna uphold the law, um, it could prevent them from and and also holds us there. I want to mention, you know, as a leader of a nonprofit organization, there is a different level of volunteerism within organizations, some like in my organization, I have volunteers that serve to sort diapers and wipes and and clothes in a baby store by board who are leaders in the organization. Their responsibility as volunteers, the liability on their shoulders is much greater than the person that is just sorting diapers, and there is a level when someone is handling a legal document such as ballot initiatives that level of responsibility should adhere to integrity and honesty, um, that the volunteerism is a little bit different there, um, but honesty should be a standard. And widely accepted by all law abiding citizens. If someone is not willing to simply sign a statement after they've collected signatures if they're not willing to sign a statement that says, yes, I bided by the law, that's it, you know, here you go, take my signatures. Um, if they're not willing to sign a statement saying that they were honest and upheld integrity while doing this. It says more about their character than it does the action of actually signing that statement, um. So I, I wanna ask all of you to consider, um, Voting in favor of 211, um, just making sure that people uphold that integrity that they already have the liability to do, it's just making sure that they fully understand the weight of that responsibility. And I will take any questions. Thank you. Robbins, there are any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions about the committee, thank you, Ms. Robbins, for your remarks. I do note appears you're signed up to speak on the other two bills. So if you just would like to remain in attendance. Next we have speaking against the bill, Gail Choate. Ms. Cho, if you would identify yourself for the record and state the name of any organization you're here representing, and then you're recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. My name is Dr. Gail Choate, and I work with Arkansas Civic Action Network. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that brings civic education throughout Arkansas. We work with communities um of all ages, all political affiliations, um, and we work very hard to make sure that people are educated on how the system works. Having been to the Senate committee meetings and hearing a great deal of testimony, um, coming to you first as an educator, but second, as a mom of 4 children. I'm quite reminded of when my kids were young, and they would come in one at a time. And attempt to get me to take sides with some kind of a dispute that was going on. Maybe it was over the Legos, maybe it was over what they were gonna have for snack, maybe it was for whatever, but they would come in to be one by one by one by one by one, and to the point where it was just so frustrating. And I would imagine you're feeling a little bit like that today, because you're hearing one by one by one, different people's individual perspective on this process. As an educator, I would ask you to stop and think about What problem are we trying to solve? And what intention are we attempting to serve? The Arkansas constitution is very, very clear in its Retention of power to the people, about the people's right, responsibility, and duty to present both referendums and constitutional amendments and having the power to Provide legislation that represents the will of the people. We seem to be somewhat conflating in our conversation today. The difference between the signature collection process and the um beginning of a um getting something onto a bill, point of order. Representative Betty, let's hear your point of order. When All right. Yeah, so Ms. Cho, Again, we're here talking about Senate Bill 211. I know your, your remarks at this point have been very general in nature. I was just getting to that, sir. OK, I apologize if you feel like I meandered a little bit, but I was just trying to lay some groundwork because what's important about this particular bill is that we are not focusing on where the problem lies. If the problem is not solved by a bill than what uses the bill other than to create another step. We heard testimony from the Secretary of State that they have a process in place to check the signatures or Secretary of State's office, I apologize, from, from their office saying that they have a process in place to check the signatures by temporaries. So we are making the assumption that those temporaries are better discerners of what is real and valid than the people who are collecting the signatures. I would say that my reason that I'm speaking against this particular bill is because it puts an undue burden on the people. There are systems in place that are already um designed to solve the problem of catching bad signatures, etc. um, and to put it on the onus of the signature collector or the canvasser, I believe is Incorrect and invalid. Where I was going a little bit earlier before the point of order was simply to say That our intention here should be to make it as easy as possible for the people of Arkansas. To say that something is wrong or something needs to be improved. And we should be doing everything we can to protect that. Throwing out signatures of everyday Arkansans because of a paperwork um issue that could arise out of the affidavit process, I believe does not fairly represent them and unjustly silences the voice of the people of Arkansas. With that being said, I would answer any questions. Thank you very much, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you described the affidavit as, as an undue burden, as the Secretary of State's office explained it's simply a one page form that somewhat that the canvasser would sign. Just asserting that they have followed all of the applicable state laws regarding canvassing. I mean it. It's just signing one form that asserts that you didn't break the law and undue burden. I hear what you're saying, Representative Ray. But I would I would question The process by which that's going to work and whether or not it really solves the problem that you're trying to get to for and, and, and by that I mean, there was certainly a lot of Room for interpretation. by the Secretary of State's office when it came to this last election cycle and the petitions that were presented, there was a lot of miscommunication. There was a lot of back and forth between the BQCs and the Secretary of State's office on what should be submitted, what shouldn't be submitted, what form needed to be there, who needed to sign it? And as a result of that, um, it created a lot of confusion and so I worry that this process would do that as well. OK, thank you. You're welcome. Representative Hawk, you recognize has Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am, for testifying. Um, a couple of questions, um, would you agree that there are bad actors, while you do it the right way and many others in the room do it the right way. Wouldn't you agree that there's bad actors that that don't do it the right way. Yes, I would agree that there may be bad actors, um, but I think one of the problems that I have with this overall package, if I'm, if I may say that, is that it does not recognize the uniqueness of our grassroots initiatives. Um, I'm all about grassroots organizers and the voice of the people. And so I am very concerned that by singling out or passing legislation that may be intended to go after more corporate interest, you are actually harming the everyday Arkansans who the Constitution was designed to protect. follow up You're recognized so you mentioned just a minute ago about throwing out everyday Arkansan signatures, right, but some of those bad actors are also fraudulently putting signatures on on ballots that get thrown out. Wouldn't you agree? Could you repeat that question for me, you talked about, you know, everyday Arkansan signatures being thrown off the ballot, and we heard earlier that that's unless it's a duplicate, that's not happening, but these some of these bad actors that I just talked about, they're putting fraudulent signatures on these things and so by with this bill, you're testifying that everything's true and and good with the, the signatures that you've collected, correct? But the problem that I have, sir, is that the person, if I, if I'm just an everyday person, right? And somebody else gives me the opportunity to sign a petition, and I signed that petition. I am exercising my right as an Arkansan to put my name on that ballot or put my name on that, on that petition, correct? Would you agree? I agree. OK, so if, um, Senator Hammer, just saying that because he's standing sitting next to me or anybody else, right, is that bad actor. And he doesn't fill out his affidavit correctly. My voice is lost. I have a problem with that as someone who believes in the power of the people and that we, the people, establish the government, right? So I think that that's the point that I'm trying to make. If that clarifies and answers your question, sir. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, Doctor Shope, for your, your testimony remarks today. Again, I go back to what I said previously about this bill and how it only applies to the actions of the canvasser. And I, I just don't see how the canvasser, this bill. impedes or imposes any hardship on our Kansans to sign a petition. It's great to meet you. How's your day going? I'm really looking forward to working with. Can, can we add those Siri has a point of remarks to the to our, let's try to keep our remarks to Senate Bill 211 but so, so my question is, could you explain to me how by putting the requirements on the actions of a canvasser that that through Failure to follow the rules. Could, could disenfranchise and could be an attack on everyone that they've gathered a signature on. Could you, could you tell me how that by putting these requirements on here and having this affidavit, how that impacts and hurts our Kansans. I just don't understand that. Please explain that to me, sir? You just did. I sure did. I'm gonna ask you another if I might. Have you ever sent out a text message with mistakes in it. So I'm gonna just stop you for just a second there. So we typically don't allow witnesses to ask questions of the committee. I understand if you're asking that in a rhetorical nature, but there's, there shouldn't be a back and forth in terms of, yeah, I'm sorry, no problem. Go ahead. Almost I would, I would venture to guess that almost everyone in this room has sent out a text message with a misspelling. They've forgot to sign their check. They've um forgotten where they place something, we make mistakes every single day. And what concerned me about what this about this particular bill and the testimony that was given earlier is that there is no notification cure, or remedy on behalf of the person who actually signed the petition. So in other words, if the affidavit is not filled out correctly or if it is not attached or if the canvasser doesn't want to fill it out, whatever that happens to be. There is no ramification in this bill that would allow notification to the person who signed so that they may have the opportunity to sign once again and make their voice heard. The other thing I just want to point out is, is that let's talk about what the worst case scenario is the worst case scenario is that something gets on the ballot where people actually vote for it. vote against it. We, uh try to keep the noise level down. At least that one wasn't on me. follow up. You're recognized. Again, I, I don't think you made your case and you didn't explain it to me where I can understand what you were saying, how this would impact and disenfranchise because that canvasser, the job that they perform is vitally important. And if they're operating outside, we've got to follow the rules. I mean, last time we had, we had um ballot initiative folks that didn't follow the rules and all of those signatures were thrown out and Supreme Court upheld that and kicked them all out because of actions of not following the. rules. Rules are important. So can you, can you tell me how someone that's not following the rules, I, I still don't see how that impacts and is harm to the direct democracy because you're trusting that canvasser to follow the rules. So you want to take another stab at it. I, I'd love to. Thank you for that opportunity. OK. In the case of somebody who signs a petition. I agree with you 100% that the role of the canvasser is, is vitally important. However, I still I would argue that the voice of the person whose signature is on that paper is also important. And they have the they have the right to have their signature. counted if possible, if the reason that there's a problem is the action of another person. I'm not. Going to Give you a whole another list of examples of how that could happen, but what I'm concerned about is I'm concerned about error being made. Regular old human error. I don't know if, if you've had the opportunity to speak to a number of people who have participated in this petition process, um, not only have I had the chance to do that, but I have studied it. I've researched it. I have data on it, and one of the things that we find consistently is that people that are out there collecting these signatures as part of grassroots initiatives are doing it because they are part of the community. They want to be part of the process. And the Constitution affords them the opportunity to put things on the ballot for vote. And again, I would point out that a signature. On a form Although it's important, is not a vote. It is purely the opportunity for people to place it on the ballot, which is their right under the Arkansas Constitution. I All right, Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor Cho, thank you for your testimony today. I wanted to ask you if I'm characterizing your words correctly before I ask a follow up. Thank you. I believe you said something along the lines following some testimony that the worst thing that could happen is that an initiative gets on the ballot and people are able to vote for or against it. For me, that, that sounds very troubling. Because I would think that the worst thing that could happen is that the will of an organization or paid canvassers outweighs the will of the people and so I would charge that the worst thing that could happen is that an organization or canvassers take advantage of the voters of Arkansas and deceive them like we have heard testimony today and that an affidavit would be holding people accountable, preventing fraud. So my question to you is, wouldn't it be worse If the people of Arkansas were defrauded and had uh they were taken advantage of to sign something they didn't understand or that uh was the opposite of what they were told that it was and that the mission of an organization or canvassers took precedence over the actual will of the people. I think that there are a number of checks and balances in the system and, and thank God we live in a country where checks and balances are part of our system. One of the things that um I think is a little bit um needs to be pointed out from what you just said, because I am absolutely against fraud, OK, I'm not, I'm not pro fraud, um, by any stretch, I am, however, believe in I'm going to go back to the fact I believe in education. If an initiative is put right now, right? BQC files an initiative, then it is up to basically the canvassers, and I believe we heard testimony that the Secretary of State's office put something on the website. Or tries to, um, and as a result of that, um, the educational process is a little bit loose. Once it's on the ballot, once it's actually, if enough signatures are collected and that it that referendum is actually placed on the ballot, there is an entirely additional educational opportunity, and I believe it's the responsibility of the state to inform its citizenry of exactly what's on a ballot, what the pros and cons are from an objective and bipartisan position. And make sure that they're educated. I would also, I just have to say this because I have the microphone right this second. I think we should have more education in our school systems that teaches people how to participate in civic engagement, so that they understand what they're signing to place the burden on a canvasser, especially volunteer canvassers to explain our entire system of government to someone before they can sign a petition, I think it's a lot. Now that doesn't speak to this bill. There was a broad comment in direct response to you. Dr. Cho, you're a very articulate and an excellent orator. However, I believe my question was a yes or no, which was to, you said the worst thing that could happen would be that something would get on the ballot and would be voted for or against, and I stand by that is, would it not be worse for the people of Arkansas to be defrauded by an organization or canvassers and be deceived into signing something that they didn't understand or they were told it was something that it wasn't. Wouldn't that be worse? Representative Rose I'm sorry, was someone talking over here? Point of order. Trying to have a conversation with the witness at the end of the table. Hang on just hang on just a second. No, no, no, hang on. I'm sorry. So Representative Rose made a point of order. Representative Rose, what's your point of order? I'm, I'm hearing too much commenting from people while I'm discussing with the witness at the end of the table, that point's well taken. Let me just say that. There's been some clapping, there's been some cheering and some other things. I just want to remind everyone that this is a committee meeting of the Arkansas General Assembly. This is not a football game or a concert. And we're trying to have a civilized debate, so let's, uh, let's let the debate proceed in a civilized and decent decent and orderly manner, uh, without any cheering and clapping and uh. And that sort of thing and without uh making too many loud comments that are interfering with the dialogue that's going on here because this is important dialogue and so I just ask everyone in the audience to remember that and uh Representative Rose, I think you were asking a question, so you're recognized to continue. Doctor Cho, you go right ahead. You're just fine. Actually, I need you to repeat it because it's been a minute. I get it, yeah, I, I appreciate that. Your dialogue's been great. You've been answering questions. It's much appreciated. I just went back to the and you said you stood by your statement, and I was trying to direct you towards a yes or no that my belief is that it is worse for Arkansans to be defrauded or deceived by an organization or by a canvasser with regards to an initiative. And the reason I stand by my statement, Representative, is because I dismissed the premise of your question because I believe that there is an opportunity for between the petition signing process and it being placed on the ballot for all ouransans to be educated, appropriately and Totally about what it means so that when they go to the place to cast their vote, their official vote, which is governed under our election laws, they would be informed and have the right to then um be remedied. Dr. Scho, I appreciate your testimony. We Definitely disagree, but I appreciate you uh dialoguing with me. Thank you. You too. Dr. Cho, I think we have one more question, Representative Wooldridge. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Um, you had made a comment earlier about the value of your signature that if you put your signature on that page you're wanting to ensure that that signature is counted and heard, correct? That is correct. So I guess my question to you, um, from a nonpartisan standpoint because I mean this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Everybody wants the public to be able to engage in the process. If you were approached by two people to sign the same petition, one of which had signed a sworn affidavit that they were going to tell the truth and collect these signatures in an ethical manner versus someone who had not signed that piece of paper, which one would you choose to sign? Well, I think I'm not an attorney, but I think answering hypothetical questions is always a little bit dangerous. um, because of course I would want to always be assured that my neighbor, my community member, the person from my church, the person in my book club that's asking me to sign that signature as a volunteer. I would hope that they are being honest and forthright in what they're presenting to me, absolutely. Follow up. You're recognized, and I appreciate that and I, I agree with you, and I think that genuinely we need to extend that kind of trust and courtesy to people, but I guess my question is if you had an opportunity to know indefinitely that one person had signed an affidavit saying that they were going to adhere to a certain standard and the other person had not, and you could pick between the two to decide which one would you sign? I could pick between those two, I would pick the person who signed the affidavit, but I also want to um just point out that at this time, right, that isn't necessarily the way that it happens. And as I mentioned, I think that always we want to strive for integrity. I would also like to to uh listen to the candidate for office who has signed an affidavit saying that everything that they're saying to me is true to the best of their knowledge and ability, and that they're not saying things just to get my vote. Same thing. Yeah, I understood. I agree with you. Um, I think that Touche on your point, but also it is kind of uh it's kind of a different perspective because this person that is out gathering signatures, they're not running for office or trying to gain your vote necessarily to advance themselves just to advance the call so I guess original point was if you had to pick between someone who had sworn that they would do an ethical thing versus someone who had not, do you believe your signature is more protected with someone who signed an affidavit. No, I don't think my signature is more protected because I would rely upon the entire system, as was testified earlier, there's a series of checks and balances, part of the Secretary of State's job is to um adhere to the laws that have been passed thus far. They are also responsible for identifying any fraud or any malfeasance and reporting that to the Attorney General's office, and I believe the checks are already in place. I also want to mention this idea of people signing twice cause you, you brought set up in, in, if I have these two opportunities, right? Um, I also just want to point out that in this last election cycle, at least, that when asked the question, what do we do if people say, I don't remember if I signed or not. I might have, but this has been going on for a while. I might not have, I'm not sure, um, canvassers were advised by the Secretary of State's office to go ahead and it was OK to take that second signature if the person did not know for sure if they had signed previously. So I just want to point that out because it, it speaks to part of the issue we've been discussing. Thank you for your testimony. You're welcome. All right, Doctor Cho, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate your remarks. Next we have signed up to speak for the bill, Janet Dixon. And once again, same admonition that I've given to other witnesses, which is this is Senate Bill 211 related to the affidavit requirement for canvassers and with that, Ms. Dixon, if you would identify yourself and then state the name of any organization. You may be here representing, and then you're recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. My name is Janet Dixon. I live in Benton and um I'm really representing myself as a community leader. I happened to be the director of our pregnancy center in town. So, and I've also been an educated in our schools. So I I'm a nurse practitioner in women's health. So I happened to be in the realm of um all that is women's health and pro-life. So the reason that I'm saying that is I have, um, I was out during the canvassing of the abortion amendment quite a few times and it really fell upon myself and other leaders in the pro-life movement for us to make sure that people were educated. We had copies of it, of the amendment so that, you know, citizens could read it for themselves and for them to understand what they were signing. So this idea of having a little bit more responsibility. It's not more responsibility on the canvasser, it's actually proving to the canvasser the severity. of their responsibility, um, for them to have just to know that they're gonna be signing an affidavit saying that they were truthful. It's a level of responsibility on them that maybe they will be more careful and I hear you all talking about bad actors and no doubt there's always bad actors, but I think more than bad actors are just careless canvassers. And maybe they took some little training on how to do it. But They were out there saying things that were wrong and I've heard personal testimony, um, Several people um told me about being at a funeral and at the very end of the funeral, a friend coming up and saying, here, sign this, I've got to turn it in tomorrow. Or um uh um a community meeting of alumni of Benton High School. Hey, sign this. I'm, I'm about to leave and would you sign this really fast. So that's being a careless canvasser, probably not intentionally doing wrong, but they are so passionate about getting signatures that they're willing to cut corners and so if they have to sign an affidavit saying they're not going to cut corners, but they're going to be truthful, then. I told them to that standard. And like I heard the previous speaker talking about, you know, how serious the rights of the signer is. I think we can all agree it's serious. We want everybody to have a good voice. I think it's important for us to have a voice and that be a secured voice. This only makes that better. I mean, like. Just to say, hey, I'm gonna tell the truth. I am going to work in a, a truthful manner means That's just gonna make the signatures more valid. So, um, I would encourage you to vote for this bill. It increases integrity, um, I think, um, I think I've covered my court, my things, the signer, of course, has a right to not be tricked. When we're talking about the canvas or having, oh, a little bit more trouble because now they're gonna have to sign an affidavit. Well, OK, that's better than tricking people into signing a petition that they weren't really clear on what they were signing. And if they are unclear about what they're signing, they're also gonna later go, huh, did I sign that? I mean, that was a good case in point. If they can't remember signing it, then they were not informed in what it was. So that there were a lot of petitions going around, people, the canvassers having multiple petitions and so it was easy for some, you know, signer to be confused and so I will say I spent a lot of time. Educating about the abortion amendment, which was the one that I knew about. It's my, it's my lane and um that was a lot of work and it took us away from our mission of helping young families in our community. Anybody have any questions, I will entertain them. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, regarding your point about the requirement of the affidavit affecting the behavior of the canvasser. So do you think that a, a fraudulent canvasser would then get to the point of having to sign the affidavit and suddenly get a, you know, have a moment of honesty and not sign that. I don't know. I mean. You're right. Maybe not, but Um I was thinking about this, really my, I was at the Senate hearing last week and Um Thinking about why is this even necessary? Can't we just all play by the rules, you know. But I'm involved in um some rules within churches and you, you know, everybody knows about child abuse in churches. So the, the church tries to prevent child abuse within the walls of the church and by ministers and volunteers. So what we've done is. Make more rules. We just have a whole lot of rules. We do background checks. We have 2 adults in a room, we make it so that a predator would not want to work in our church preschool. They would want to do something else. So, yeah, it seems like a lot of rules and it does keep some people from wanting to work in the nursery. But in this case, and I'm just trying to make an analogy. Um, Yeah, it's a lot. We're asking a lot of the canvasser. But isn't the Arkansas's signature, the, the resident signature worth it? For it to be valid and of their own accord, and you're right. Somebody's gonna, if they really want to get a lot of signatures, they're gonna just lie or sign the affidavit that they told them that they did it all right, but maybe if they know that they could be prosecuted. They could spend a minute in jail. They would think a little bit longer about doing something wrong. Um, we also know of an instance where the petition was set down at a nurse's station at a hospital and just left there like, OK, anybody just sign it because I'm going to the OR while I'm in the OR people can just sign it. And of course, hospital administration came down and moved it. That was not appropriate in the workplace and it wasn't legal. So that's the kind of Careless canvassing. That was going on. And if that person knew I am likely to be prosecuted because I am signing an affidavit saying I did it according to the rules. They would be less likely maybe. To do that type of behavior. Thanks, appreciate your time. All right, seeing no further questions by the committee, thank you, Ms. Dixon, for being here. Next we have signed up to speak against the bill. Miss Melissa Fultz. Miss Boltz once again same admonition, we're on Senate Bill 211 related to the affidavit requirement for canvassers. If you would identify yourself for the record stating your name of any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. My name is Melissaults. I'm here on my own accord, but I also represent Arkansans for uh patient access. Um, I've been doing this process and then the sponsor as well as a a canvasser for the last 14 years. Um, is there some people that don't do everything right. Yes, there probably is. Are there people that sign at multiple times, even when we tell you, you should only sign it once. It is the law, you can only sign it once. They still sign it multiple times. That is not the canvasser's problem. Uh, but I will point out, if, if you'll let me read this to you on the bottom of each petition. Every canvasser has to sign. blank, being sworn, state that each of the foregoing persons signed his or her own name to this sheet of the petition in my presence to the best of my knowledge and belief, each signature is genuine and each signer is a registered voter of the state of Arkansas in the county listed at all times during the circulation of this signature sheet and exact copy of the popular name ballot title and text was. attached to this signature sheet. My current resident address is correctly stated. They sign it. It is notarized this. This is your affidavit every petition page that you sign, you sign knowing you are signing an affidavit that you have done the job properly. If someone has lied to you, that's not on you, and the biggest concern I have about this affidavit is. There was a woman Thursday that spoke and talked about how she And, and she signed a petition, she didn't realize she signed. I know exactly whose petition she signed. I know exactly the fact that she called her, asked her to bring them to the funeral so that they could sign it because she knew what she was signing. Then she turned around and said, oh, I was misled. So right, I have a point. I'm sorry, but I do have a point. If you sign this affida David, and then someone contacts the Secretary of State's office and claims that you misled them. You did not do it properly, whether you did or not, you stand to number one, be prosecuted. 2, they may have collected 5000 signatures and every signature that they collected can be thrown out, which disenfranchises the people. So you're gonna use this one little affidavi. to allow if someone says you didn't do it right, that you can be prosecuted and you can have every one of your signatures thrown out. We already signed an affidavit every single time, having to have another affidavit that someone can claim you did not do it right, whether you did it or not. It can cause you to go to jail? To ruin your life and every one of those signatures, nobody knows if their signature got thrown off. And by the way, this is a two part process. I've signed petitions that I wouldn't vote for it if my life depended on it, but there were people who believed in it and felt it was important enough to get on the ballot. And from 2012 to 2024, there were 137 people-led initiatives on the ballot. Because it got on the ballot, does it really mean anything because of those 65 of them passed, yet 72 of them failed. So, signing an affidavit, you already signed an affidavit. So now they're gonna ask you to sign another affidavit to go and get another affidavit notarized and allow someone that could come in and lie about what you did or didn't do and you can go to jail because like the woman Thursday said and lied every word that came out of her mouth. She could have gotten that girl sent to prison because she was against abortions. You know, that these, these blockers that talk about how wonderful they were and how appropriate they were. They took bullhorns screaming at the petitioners. She talks about teenagers, you have to be 18 years old to gather signatures. If you're not 18 years old, you're signatures are not acceptable. And when you sign, when you are a, a canvasser, you sign a sheet of paper saying you have been trained that you know the rules and that you intend to follow those rules. So this is an unnecessary step because the step is already taken every time you turn in a petition. You go and find a notary, you sign it in front of that notary and you state that you did the job correctly that you were honest and that every signature on here that you know of is correct. And, and, and I, in answer to some of those other questions, the problem is not the canvasser. Getting in well, it is in this state getting in trouble, but they have asked several times about what they meant about the, the signature will be kicked out or or be disenfranchised and that's exactly what happens if I signed this paper. And then the whoever was my canvasser signed it, the affidavit that has been notarized stating that they were honest and had the integrity they were supposed to and then Someone calls the Secretary of State's office and said they didn't do what they were supposed to. My signature will be thrown off. I have no way of knowing my signature was thrown off. And yes, actually. I would rather see it get on the ballot, then everything gets thrown out because All these do is allow something to be on the ballot. And as I've shown you, that doesn't mean it's gonna pass. As a matter of fact, more of them have failed than have passed. So saying that you're hoodwinking or whatever word you want to use, the people, to get it on the ballot is just not true. And I'm asking you please to vote against it. All right, thank you, Mrs. Foltz, uh, Representative Rose, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Foltz, thank you for your testimony. I wanted to um ask you first to characterize something you said and then I have a follow up. In your testimony you said getting on the ballot doesn't mean anything. And then at the very end of your testimony, you said, I'd rather see it get on the ballot instead of thrown off. Can you characterize those two statements which seem to conflict with each other. Yes, it does matter. Your signature does matter. But my point is, All of these bills. I know I'm only supposed to talk about this one, but all of them have the same goal. To make sure. That the people's voice is never heard. Every one of these bills since 2013. Yeah, I have filed 31 bills. That had one purpose and one purpose only to take the people's voice. This is just another one we already signed affidavits. Why should we have a bill that makes you sign another affidavit that you've already signed multiple times and have been notarized and you are legally obligated that if you sign this, that you're making a true statement. So finding another one is not gonna make it more true or make it more false. It's just going to be another step where that person has to get that out of you, David, and you ask or know who asks it? Would I rather sign one that somebody had signed an affidavit or someone who hadn't. Number one, when you're gathering signatures, you've not signed that affidavit. Nobody has except for at the end of each page. So that doesn't hold true because That person hasn't turned them in yet, so they haven't signed an affidavit. All right, thank you, Ms. Folz. Did that answer you? Well, I'm sure you had some thoughts you wanted to share that I wasn't looking for, but I, I appreciate you, you sharing a lot that you're not asking for that's fine. I, I just kind of wanted to make sure I was characterizing your statements correctly and, and I get maybe it was tongue in cheek you said getting on the ballot doesn't matter because I think we both agree that getting on the ballot does matter and you alluded in your comments just now, uh to the bill and that this bill was preventing the voices of the people being heard. Can you articulate where in the bill you take that issue with. My biggest issue with the bill itself. My specific issue is that this bill along with every other bill in the past 12 in the bill. I'm getting that. OK. have been to make it more difficult. And more expensive and more time consuming to gather the signatures. OK I have been, like I said, I've been doing this for 14 years. I've stood out in the rain. I've stood in the heat, I've stood in the cold. I've asked people over and over and over to sign our petitions. It's hard. You have no idea how hard it is and how expensive it is, and we were very, very hard to train everybody that takes a petition out of the office to go and gather signatures. In 2012, it cost But this has to do with it. I really just want and and I appreciate, I hate to I hate to cut you off. I really do, and I appreciate the hard work and the cost, but To the bill, HB 211 or SB 211. Can you point to language from the bill that you're taking issue with because the accusation you said was that this is taking the freedom to some degree. I'm I'm paraphrasing, taking freedom from Arkansans, that that is what this bill does. Can you share with me the language you specifically take issue with it, how it will affect The people are the canvasser or the mainly the petition is that if you sign this affidavit, which you've already signed, yet you sign this affidavit and someone like the woman Thursday that lied. blatantly lied, can contact the Secretary of State. And say this person did not do their job. And in, in response, the Secretary of State can say, oh, if he did it once, probably did it all the time. It can literally Remove every signature that that person collected. They're already stating they did their job. This is not gonna make it any better. It's just gonna be one more step that makes it more difficult because they're gonna have to sign that affidavit, they're gonna have to find a notary and then they're going to turn it in with all the other affidavits that they have signed and they have had notarized. It is just another step. To stop the process of the people having a voice. Ms. Foltz, thank you for your testimony. I just want to draw attention. I specifically asked for language from the bill that caused the issue, and we didn't, we weren't able to get that so I I yield my time if I can find it to read it. Because, you know, y'all don't ever read y'all's bills. So let me see if I can find it. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Representative Rose, you recognize your point of order. I yield my time back from this witness, and we do read our bills. Well, out loud to everybody. Hang hang on just a minute, Ms. Boltzig certainly appreciate you being here. I appreciate your remarks. You have a First Amendment right to say Essentially whatever you'd like. So is there anything else that you'd like to say? Yes, we work hard. We work really hard and we try to do everything right. But For instance, And not on this bill, but I am gonna say this, to let you see just how difficult it already is to get a measure on the ballot between 2014 and 2024, 68 people led petitions were filed. lot of those, only 7 made the ballot. Because it is already so difficult to get your signatures, and it is so difficult to talk to people and say, please, if you've already signed it, don't sign it again. It doesn't do us any good. It doesn't help us and your vote doesn't, your voice doesn't count twice. all this does is give us another. step that we have to do that we've already done multiple times. Why would we have to do it one more time. It's a waste of time, a waste of money, and quite frankly, it's a waste of the Secretary of State's election division department because they have to check to make sure every one of these canvassers have signed yet another affidavit that they've already signed multiple times. So it costs the Secretary of State more money. So is that what we're trying to do? Trying to do more work for the Secretary of State and create more cost to them because we are already doing what he is asking us to do. Thank you for letting me talk and I'll be back for the other two. All right. Thank you, Ms. Boltz. No, no, no, no, no. We've already. So, no, no, no, I, I was referring to the clapping once again I'm sorry I didn't ask him to. No, I know you didn't, and, and again, thank you for your remarks. We appreciate you and you're out of the hot seat. We look, we look forward to seeing you again soon. Um, I will say with regard to the clapping though to everyone here, you know, I don't like when a chair is heavy-handed about audience members and their actions and and trying to remove people from meetings. I'm not about that. Uh, but once again I just want to say that we're trying to have a civilized debate and committee meeting here. This is not a ball game, it's not a concert. It's not, uh, you know, appropriate to be cheering and clapping and and doing things. There's a time and place for that, but it's not here. So let's just keep that in mind and We have next signed to speak against the bill. Carol Egan Ms. Egan, if you would state your name, identify yourself for the record in any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. My name's Carol Leon and I'm just here as an individual, uh citizen of Arkansas. Um, I think that I'm just going to, we, we didn't coordinate our remarks, right? And I don't want to be uh redundant to what other people have said. Uh, so I, I think what, what I struggle with, um, is What is really the intent here because I see perhaps unintended consequences. And and what I mean by that is if we have a petition and it's already signed and notarized by the um by the canvasser, and then let's say that canvasser turns in, you know, 300 petitions, um. And then they sign an affidavit. I'm just trying to figure out how this is gonna work. So, and what if um some of their, the signatures on any number of theirs are duplicative with one another canvasser. Collected. Um They Or, or there's some other kind of question of fraud or like um miss Fouts uh false referred to somebody complains, then do all of those get thrown out because they, they affidavit covered all of those petitions and so now we've gone from 10 signatures being lost to 2000 signatures being lost, um, 2000 voters not. being heard. And then I worry too is if the purpose of this affidavit is not to um then have legal recourse to Uh The press charges, criminal charges, because petition brought a uh a class A, a class D felony, right? So they could spend a year in jail, um, and so back to one of the people who spoke for the bill, she said, Well, we made the rules in our church hard so nobody who could be a potential abuser would want to the job is the purpose of this to make sure we can't find canvassers because they're not going to want the job because they're putting themselves at risk for a year and prison based on potentially somebody's complaint. I'm, I'm just not sure that's what we're intending to do. Um, but I do see that as a very potential consequence. So I would question why we would need this additional level of bureaucracy in a time in a in a political climate where we're trying to, you know, have less bureaucracy, right? Um, and uh why can't we just live with the petition as it exists. It an unnecessary bill. That's, that's All my remarks. All right, thank you, Ms. Egan, seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you for being here. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. I got a motion. All right, let's hear your motion. My motion is limit debate to 3 minutes per speaker. That way all speakers get a chance to speak. All right, um, I will say historically I have been opposed to these types of motions. Because there are uh we have several members or several individuals here who have signed up and at this point we we're out of the 4s and it's everyone is against. But I I'll just say this, I'm gonna. But I'm gonna The take that motion under advisement for the moment, but the point is this that for all the speakers who are assigned up to speak against we're on speaker number 8 at this point, we have about 18 and so what I'm gonna say to you is at some point the against remarks become cumulative. Some other people have already made the same points and if you're just gonna make the same points that other people have made, maybe consider, uh, having somebody else. Present the same that testimony that you would intend to present, uh, and let's try to keep the comments as concise as possible, but I don't particularly want to limit anyone at this moment, but I will, uh, If the testimony continues to go on. really long and, and far beyond what is is necessary and kind of out outside the bounds of decency and order then uh we'll reconsider that motion at that time. So next we have signed up to speak against the bill. Doctor William Goolsby. Mr. Grillsby, if you'll identify yourself for the record and state in the organization you're here representing, you're recognized to present your remarks, yes, my name is William Goolsbee, and I'm here representing myself as a citizen of the state of Arkansas. Um, I am uh 88 years old and through those 88 years I've seen a lot of progress in this nation and state. I grew up in Mississippi. During a period of the Jim Crow laws and segregation. And I'm thankful that to a large extent that those laws and rules have gone away. Black people are now allowed to vote in Mississippi and Arkansas, whereas they generally were not allowed to vote when I was growing up. They also were not allowed to attend. Integrated schools. Um, where I grew up on a farm in Mississippi. We had school buses for white children. And no school buses for black children, so they did not go to school. I do not, I think that we have made great progress in social Uh, ways and in voting rights. Throughout through that 88 years that I've lived. And I hate to see us going backwards. I think that it's natural and human affairs when we have made great progress that there is a backlash. And today we're experiencing that backlash in the nation and the state. And the law, this law here. Number 211 Senate Bill number 211. is evidence of that same thing. Uh, Arkansas has had rather liberal laws. In terms of allowing the people to vote and express themselves and make amendments to the Constitution. And this is another law putting another layer of Complicated time and effort. And complications. On that process of collecting ballots, uh, collecting signatures to place something on the ballot. Uh, 3 problems with that that I can see. One of the main things is that we, we should be concentrating on how to protect the valid signatures. Rather than throwing out valid signatures because of one bad signature. For instance, a bad actors are on both sides of an issue. And if you have someone who's a bad actor who goes around and signs. Uh, the, uh, petitions. With various different Franchi uh collectors, you know, so that, um. Perhaps that person signs. 10 different. initiatives then. That would have 90. Good signatures thrown out, right? So 90 people have lost their Legitimate right of expression because of this one bad actor, so we should be concerned more with the bad actors who are throwing out valid signatures. Then Someone who's collecting signatures who might be Encouraging people to put to sign a ballot who shouldn't be signing a ballot. are putting a fake signature on there or something like that in order to make money or some other reason. I think the danger we should be protecting the voters rather than Worrying about the bad actors, especially since it's been testimony that Uh, nope, nobody's getting prosecuted when they commit these fraudulent actions. Also, the statement that Uh, out of 100,000 votes. Um 200 to 400,000 of those. Excuse me, signatures out of 100,000 signatures, 200 400,000 of those signatures are bad and get thrown out. Well, I think that's not true. There might be 2000 to 400,000 signatures thrown out. But the bad signatures that caused those signatures to be thrown out or only a fraction of that, so maybe. 2000 or 4000 signatures caused 2000 to 400,000 signatures to be thrown away. So I think we should be concerned more with the valid signatures being thrown away, then the bad signatures that might slip through. So, uh, also, um, This um Bill along with the others has been testified by other people is just putting another layer on there and accomplishing nothing so except for one more little piece of paper, so you've got somebody who's collecting signatures and somehow that page, that sheet that. should have that person's signature on there gets lost or that person isn't told to sign it or doesn't sign it. Then all of the signatures collected. Valid signatures are collected by that person. All of these people have their signatures thrown out. That seems like a real problem to me. Why add another layer? Well So I be happy to take any questions. All right, Doctor Goolsby seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for your remarks. Next we have signed to speak against the bill, Rebecca Zimmerman. Rebecca Zimmerman. OK. Representative Barry, you're recognized. You turn your bike on. Thank you Mr. Chair, we plan on listening to the other two meals also. We are indeed we have two other bills that we're going to hear. Just to remind everyone, uh, here in attendance, we're on Senate Bill 211 related to the affidavit requirement uh for canvassers, I would ask you to keep your remarks limited to that understanding that we have two other bills to hear and to hear for and against and to vote on and so there's a lot of work left and we can be here until midnight. Which is fine with me. Who's going to order the pizza? Representative Barry, you're, uh, I'd like to make a motion. All right, let's hear your motion. Uh, immediate consideration. Yeah All right, there's not immediate consideration is not a proper motion at this time. Immediate consideration can only follow a main motion which is like the motion to pass, and since we don't have a main motion of do pass on the table, we can't hear immediate consideration at this time, but I appreciate your point and your point is well taken that we have a lot of business to conduct and I would just again ask everyone to be mindful of that. I'd like to make another motion then. All right, let's hear it that we limit it to 3 minutes, that was the same motion represented Wardlaw made. I, I took that motion under advisement. I'm gonna continue to do that, but if we have speakers that continue to go along, then I'm going to, I'll reconsider representative Beatty. Motion motion, uh, motion to allow 5 minutes of discussion from each of the folks for and against the bill. OK. Well, most of the remarks I would say that I've heard thus far have been about 5 minutes, so. Uh I, I really don't want to have to do that. Uh, I would just ask the witnesses to be mindful of your remarks. I'm gonna take that motion under advisement as well, and we'll uh. We'll take it up at the, maybe at the appropriate time. Zimmerman, you're recognized if you would identify yourself state in the organization you're here representing you be recognized for your remarks. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Rebecca Zimmer with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and we believe that Arkansas families should have a say in major decisions that will impact their communities. That's why we support the ballot measure process and ask that you please vote against SB 211. We have a good relationship with Senator Hammer, and we are sure that hammer and representative Underwood believe that this bill is necessary to maintain election integrity. However, this and their other proposed measures will have serious consequences for voters attempting to exercise their constitutional rights. The ballot measure process has been the constitutional right of the people of the state for over 100 years, but repeated rounds of legislation have made the ballot measure process so unnecessarily complex, that it can overwhelm the average or candid and prevent them from exercising this right. More than increasing election security, these bills main effect is weakening the power of everyday Arkansans by adding barriers that would prevent voters from participating in direct democracy. Though in large effect SB 211 would expand the bureaucratic processes of the Secretary of State's office. It would also complicate the long-standing process of allowing ballot measure campaigns to continue collecting signatures in the lead up to the cure period. No evidence has been presented showing that the current practice is faulty or has led to wrongdoing. This bill would be another wrench thrown into the wheels of direct democracy. Though these bills are likely well-meaning efforts by the senator and representative, um, to ensure that voters fully understand the responsibilities and that wrongdoing is not committed by ballot measure campaigns, the impact will be very different than the intention. The red tape that this package of bills and this, including this one will create the stifle voters' constitutional rights. We hope that you will please vote against SB 211. Thank you, Mrs. Zimmerman, seeing no questions by the committee, we appreciate you being here and thank you for your remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Jen Standefer. I'm stand up for if you would identify yourself, state the name of any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Jen Standefer. I'm here representing both Arkansas Appleseed and myself and my individual capacity. I served on the ballot question committee in the drafting committee for the Arkansas Citizens for Transparency with the Transparency amendments. With that, I carried the first petitions I have ever carried in my career, um, but I do also practice election law in my regular practice, and so I have a fair bit of experience with. this. I would first note that, um, and I'm sorry that Senator Hamer stepped out because I hope to tell him if he were to amend this to include the simple language that he has in 211. Concerning compliance with the Arkansas law concerning canvassing, perjury, forgery, and fraudulent practices if that existed in the affidavit that already exists on the petition parts I would not object to this bill, um, I, my problem is with additional paperwork, um. And I know that that these are sponsors who have done good work for efficiency, um, and I, I, I hope that they would consider that, um, but I think that that language alone is, is fine. I believe we should, we should fight against forgery, we should fight against fraudulent acts, we should protect the process and I think it would be sufficient to do that without the additional paperwork. Second, Um, While I agree that we should do all of this, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Miss Bellamy testified earlier that the Secretary of State's office is not reporting these to law enforcement for investigation. If that's the case, these don't make any difference because if there's no report, there will never be an investigation and there will never be a prosecution. I am a former deputy prosecutor and and I want us to uphold the law and the integrity of this process, but if we're not reporting them, it doesn't matter how many additional hoops we put on this, it's not going to get prosecuted and people are going to continue to make fraudulent acts. Finally, um, I would like to talk about the process itself and um representative Beatty, I know we've talked a lot about wanting to keep these um to 211, but rest assured that if litigation is brought coming after these, they will be brought cumulatively and, and the, the issue is that we have 3 separate rights. There's probably more than that, but there are 3 that are the most important ones for us to consider, and none of them belong to the sponsor. The sponsor is a cog in the machine. The sponsor is a process. The sponsor is not do the rights of the process. The rights that are most important to consider and remember are one, the right of the voter to sign the petition to the right of the canvasser to carry a petition, and both of those exist in Article 5, Section 1. But the other one that's is more It is more fundamental, and that is the fundamental right to free speech as a matter of law, when I asked the question, will you sign my petition, please. That is the same thing as will you vote for me? These are both First Amendment protected speech. They are both campaign speech, and they both carry the same protections under law. So when we start adding these hoops to jump through for. Speech concerning an issue. But not for our campaign speech, we are holding our citizens and our people, our voters to a higher burden than you hold yourselves. So I do ask that you consider that these, these are gonna be the objections that are gonna come forward, primarily though with regard to the voters' right to sign. The voter has a constitutional right, both under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article 5, Section 1 to sign that petition when you infringe upon that right with additional hoops. It doesn't matter which ones, and I agree with Representative Beatty that some of these are more onerous than others, um, but when you see them all together. And you look at them cumulatively or when you look at them each individually, if you were going to infringe on that right to sign, you have to provide due process of law, and a lot of you know this because a lot of you were around when we were doing voter identification. And if you remember it took a lot to get voter identification through because that cure period had to exist for it to get past constitutional muster. So, so what it needs is an opportunity in order to be like and and I'm not saying this just as a matter of policy. I believe this personally, but as a matter of law to protect and insulate any of these changes that are being made through these bills, you have to give the voter, not the sponsor, the voter. The opportunity to be heard and noticed before that opportunity. Um, and so I would ask that you consider an amendment that would require that before any of these are um are any of the signatures are invalid, invalidated or removed, that that notice and an opportunity to be heard by the voter be granted. Um, I will also note that I did reach out to Senator Hammer about this this weekend, um, in hopes that I could talk to him directly about it. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions, I'd Happy to visit with any of you as well. All right, thank you, Ms. Stander for Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Ms. Stanford, you have touched on a new topic that others have not, which is the legality of these types of um laws and so I guess I just want to ask you, do you, do you think that the supreme, the Arkansas Supreme Court erred in their determination and the Spencer versus McDaniel case from 2013. Supreme Court has ruled in the Supreme Court law, Supreme Court law. However, what I will note is that this is a balancing act and and I know the term we keep hearing is death by 1000 cuts, right? So as you keep piling hoops for, for Arkansans to jump through the the test gets harder. There are, there's new litigation that will continue to be broad and there's. There are individuals who have standing who have not brought the arguments with their standing yet, so it, it depends on who brings the claim, whether it's a sponsor that brings the claim or a voter that brings the claim, you know, those sorts of things do weigh into that. Um, I'm not arguing with existing law, but, but there are also federal case, uh, there's also federal court challenges that can be brought. There's much litigation left. I understand any any any law that's passed can be challenged. um, so I asked you about Spencer versus McDaniel. Do you think that the Supreme Court erred in their decision in Washburn versus Hall. I'm, I am not going to argue against the Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court precedent of Supreme Court precedent. OK, thank you. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I asked to see a copy um that Miss Volts had of the, the petition and, you know, I don't think it is by any surprise that I certainly was against this particular petition, the Arkansas Abortion Amendment, but I just wanted to put my own eyes on this and, and I, I maybe you can help explain this to me because I, I am reading on here the person signs it and I'm gonna read out loud, it says, um, to the, this is what the the canvasser is signing. It says to the best of my knowledge and belief each signature is genuine. And each signer is a registered voter of the state of Arkansas in the county listed at all times during the circulation of this signature sheet and exact copy of the popular name, ballot title, and text was attached to the signature sheet. My current residence address is correctly stated below. It then is notarized by someone. So I'm really struggling why we need an additional piece of paper that basically says this exact same thing. I, I'm to me what the problem is, is that someone is signing this. If, if what we've heard the testimony that the person wasn't there, it was left out, I think, at a nurse's desk or something like that. The person wasn't there. That Is that not really what the problem is, is that people are signing this and they're, they're, they're lying when they sign it and should there not be maybe more prosecution to the to the canvasser because to me, if the person is going to sign this piece of paper right here, they're gonna sign another affidavit too. Am I missing something? I'm just, I'm kind of struggling. No, you're, you're 100% correct. I mean, this is a duplicative process created in 211, um, and, and the, and the problem is even though it's duplicative, if no one ever reports it, the first one or the second one is not gonna get prosecuted. Neither of them are. The issue that we have is that we do have laws in place to prevent against fraud. We do have an affidavit to prevent against fraud and, and the people who are in the best position. to turn that over to law enforcement for whatever reason are not doing that, um, and, and none of the prosecutions will get initiated now or after 211 passes without that step. Because if they're, if they're signing it right here saying that this is, they followed everything, all the sheets of paper are here and there's also a big sheet that explains instructions to the canvasser and signers and it's, it's pretty detailed about all the law. They're saying they've read that, they've done all that. I'm not quite understanding why we have to do it again and what that would, what that would solve. I, I don't think it would solve anything, but that being said, I don't think the additional language is even necessary. But if Senator Hammer and Representative Underwood were to include that additional sentence and what's already on the affidavit, I don't think that would be very burdensome to us. I think it, I don't think it would add any additional hoops. We would still have to sign off, it would still have to be truthful. We would still have to have it notarized and I would not object to that if it would make uh Senator Hammer and those that support his bill feel more comfortable with um with SB 211. I, I just last statement, I think the problem is we need to go after. The canvassers that are lying when they sign these documents. I agree. Just my opinion. All right, seeing no further questions, thank you, Ms. Stander, for being here. Next we have Susan Carolyn Speak against the bill. Most people butcher my name. If you would identify yourself for the record, any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your remarks. My name is Susan Caroline and I'm here as an ordinary citizen of the state of Arkansas and I represent myself and my family. Um, All the people that went before me basically said everything that I wish that I could have said or had known to say, to say, um, they've, they've articulated everything really well. I, I, what I want to add at this point is you have. hampered us in speaking about this bill properly by not allowing us to talk about the other bills that are in conjunction with it, because what's the big deal about getting another piece of paper and signing it. I mean, that in itself is really not that big of a deal. What the problem is, is what you, what, if you pass the other bills in the series, what is going to put onto the canvassers and that's the elephant in the room you have not let us talk about today. That's pretty much what I have to say, because they've all said it all. All right, seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, Ms. Carolyn, for being here. Thank you. Next we have Tyler Draper. Signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Troyer, if you would identify yourself in any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Uh, good afternoon, my name's Tyler Draper. I'm a teacher in Hot Springs and uh I've worked on many ballot initiatives throughout the state and uh representative RJ Hawk had something that really scared me. Uh, my first one that I worked on, we were trying to make Hot Spring County. A wet county and so we're doing the ballot, uh, questioning and uh so I, I think that some of this, these rules, although I think the Secretary of State said it won't affect it. This affidavit. People aren't gonna know what affects, you know, statewide or local municipality issues. It just, it just creates a lot of confusion. So that's why I'm definitely against it, and then, uh, one more thing I just wanted to, you know, give a situation that I had this summer, uh, I was in Waldron collecting signatures and my shoes were melting. I was literally on hot pavement. And we had these uh people chasing us around trying not to let us sign and. I would at that day all I had was the education one. People would come up and they would ask, hey, you know, do I have a red pen, a blue pen, a green pen doesn't matter. And so You know, when people go to sign this or when we sign this affidavit, it just creates so much confusion and misunderstanding that It It's really disenfranchising people who signed the petition, you know, to throw those out and create such confusion, so I would definitely vote no on this, and if we want to fix it, Put it on the actual thing that we already signed, whatever language you want to add, just go ahead and put it on the paper that's already there. Save us the print money, save us the confusion and all that, just put it on the paper that's already there and I definitely wouldn't oppose if we could do that uh because we do need to have integrity. We need to have fairness and make sure that people aren't being deceived, so please vote no on this and then make the fixes that I recommended. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Draper, seeing no questions by the committee, we appreciate your remarks. Next, we have to speak against the bill. Kwami Abdul Bay. We would, uh, state your just identify yourself for the record and state the name of any organization, you may be here representing your recognize present your remarks. My name is Kwame Abdulbay, uh, I am the political action chair for the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, uh, and I am also A campaign manager for uh several different ballot initiatives. A lot of the things that have been said, I'm not gonna repeat. So I just want to bring up some things that have not been said, uh, in the last two people did talk about. change in the language, uh, the language, uh, We when we talk about the difference between an affidavit and a true affidavit, what makes an affidavit a true affidavit if, if it's under penalty of perjury. So all you have to do is add those words to the existing box that this is being signed in the penalty of perjury and you solve the entire problem that you're pretending to solve with SB 211. Um It was also stated that uh signing a petition uh is a uh. So Freedom of speech, uh, protected by due process, and that was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1988. In Meyer versus Grant when they specifically said that uh signing a ballot initiative is interactive communication concerning political change that is appropriately described as core political speech. That must be protected by due process. So, uh, as it was stated before, if you want to advance these type of laws, you need to make sure that they have due process components in them. Another thing that was said earlier is uh a couple of people mentioned an affidavit using language as if the affidavit would be signed before you collect the signatures. The language in the bill, uh actually says that the affidavit will be signed after. You collect the signatures, so I wanna make it clear to everyone that there is no pre-affidavit. It's actually a post affidavit and affidavits are a matter of civil law, not a matter of criminal law, uh, so I don't know why we're uh conflating the two. Let's see. Another thing that's important about this bill is that it has an emergency clause and the Arkansas Supreme Court in safe Surgery, Arkansas versus Thurston in 2019, specifically stated that whenever you put an emergency clause on. uh, INR initiative and referendum uh type legislation that is essentially voter disenfranchisement. There is no emergency. The next election is months away, so there is no emergency that uh requires an emergency clause and our Supreme Court has stated just that. Uh Let me pull this up. I wanna read you the language of the bill that is. Interesting to me. Uh, if you look at page one of the bill. Hold on, let me see where is this. And, OK, page one line 36, and it goes to page 2, line 1 and line 2. It says a true affidavit submitted under subdivision J1 of this section should not. shall have no bearing to establish the genuineness our falsity of the signatures. So if you're pretending that this is about election fraud, the bill itself says that this, it doesn't correct election fraud. It doesn't deal with uh a signature whether it's genuine or whether it's a false signature. So this affidavit, not only is it duplicative, it does nothing. But create an extra step for canvassers and for uh people that are trying to collect signatures. The last thing that I want to say is that Under current law, when you have the box that you have to sign. And get notarized. If there's a problem with that signature and with that uh that was notarized, then you have 10 signatures that have the possibility of being thrown out. Under this law, if that same person turned in. 1000 signatures instead of 10 signatures being able to be thrown out all 1000 of those signatures would be able to be thrown out. So that's a serious problem that I need all of you guys to take into consideration when we're talking about the fundamental right. To direct democracy here in Arkansas. Arkansas is one of only 16 states, so we have a rare right that most Americans don't even have, and we need to protect that right. That's it. Any questions? Oh, vote against SB 211 Any questions? All right, seeing no questions about the committee. Thank you, Mr. Babe, I appreciate your Abdulbay, thank you so much. Uh, next we have Chance Bradford. But, uh, 211. No. Oh, I'm sorry, you're, you're just 208. Yeah, that's right. Uh, Next we have Roan Kuta. Stira if you'd identify yourself and stayed in the organization you're here representing and you'd be recognized to Present your remarks. Hello, Mr. Chair. My name is uh Ronan Kuda. Um, I am representing myself. I am, however, a former canvasser. I'm 18 years old actually, so teenagers can canvas. I would like to begin uh my testimony by speaking in some generalities before I get to the um basics of of 211. Um, I want to address a lot of the things that have been said around fraudulence. um, representative Underwood began his introduction of this bill by saying that there is a growing issue of fraudulent petitioner behavior, and it is a direct quote from the Secretary of State that the last election cycle might have been the worst cycle with regards to fraud. Um, I'm going to quote Representative Underwood again. There are apparently people trying to sign other people's names, um, I'm going to quote. Now the Secretary of State saying that petitions are getting through that are technically invalid, um, Representative Hawk has also mentioned bad actors within the process of collecting signatures, um and Representative Susan Mayberry has also spoken about going after petitioners, um, that are lying and so called bad actors. Now I want to be perfectly clear. This narrative is built on lies. There is not a single piece of felony. litigation against petitioners with regards to um fraudulence. There's no. Let's hear your point of order. Let's speak to the bill. It All right, uh, you know, fair point, I think, I think he was. Trying to speak to the bill, but just uh I was, um, speaking of the fraudulence attached to the reasoning attached to why we're talking about this bill in the first place. I'm yes, thank you, Mr. Coon. Again, I just uh try to keep your remarks to SB 211 related to the affidavit requirement for canvassers and I know, I think that's what you're trying to do. You're just speaking in generalities and I'm sure we'll get to more specifics. So you're recognized. Yes, so to take for example the last um election cycle saw the abortion rights amendment get shot. Down by the Secretary of State and um they refused to count the signatures at first because they said that the paperwork was not properly filed. Shortly after that, the Supreme Court ordered that they must count the signatures and then after that the Supreme Court shut it down. There was not a single piece of uh their rulings, not a single statement made by the Secretary of State that had anything to do with fraud. All of it had to do with invalid signatures and signatures from people that were either signing twice or we're not registered to vote. not um registered in the database of the Secretary of State. Um, I want to be very clear that it is the job of the Secretary of State to ensure that these things are valid. It is the job of the Secretary of State to provide a cure period um for um organizations that have met the requirements for the number of signatures um required for the cure period. Um, now I'm, I'm going to move on here directly to 211. There's something that's very um. Disturbing to me about the the verbiage of this bill and the purpose of what it is trying to accomplish. I understand that there is already an affidavit um on every single petition. I was a petitioner. I, I collected, um, I can't count how many uh signatures, and I had to sign every single one of those petition papers at the very bottom, and it was an affidavit stating the things that have probably already been said a dozen times in this room, um, this additional affidavit is concerning to me because um I hear now that it is um being It is opening the floor for prosecution of canvassers who are supposedly engaging in fraud. Now I want to speak directly to that, um, there seems to be a conflation between um invalid signatures and fraud. I do not know how fraud is supposed to be quantified or proven in a in a court setting, especially considering that um the gathering of signatures is never really recorded or observed by others than just the canvasser and the actual signee. I am confused as to how um that is going to be handled through the court system. Are there actually going to be charges of fraud brought against canvassers and isn't this, um. Is it really the job of the canvasser to ensure that every single signature is valid to begin with. I feel like um this is going to open the floor for the state to prosecute. Um, the people of Arkansas. For trying to gather petitions and prosecuting them on the lines of fraudulent behavior, um, and I have not heard any statements um in this room, addressing that so far. I have no, I've not heard any um testimony that's been given or any statements by the sponsors of this bill, um, stating that this won't be a problem moving forward. Um I, um, We'll see the rest of my time for questions. Thank you, Mr. Kuta, seeing no questions from the committee. Thank you for your remarks. Next we have Leewood Thomas. Oh, no, I'm sorry, that's uh 208. Next, looks like Robert Miller. signed up to speak against the bill. Yeah He Mr. Miller, if you would identify yourselves, state the name of any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your remarks. My name is Robert Miller. I'm disabled and a lifelong student of history and science. I hold an engineering degree and I'm a business and homeowner in central Arkansas. I signed petitions for many ballot initiatives, even ones I vote against on my ballot because I believe in the democracy. I'm here as a concerned citizen. Go ahead. You're recognized as a systems engineer, I'm afraid that when all the relief valves are closed off, the people will only have the lessons learned from our founding fathers who were left no choice but to stand against the deaf ears of their administrators to relieve the pressure. The history books hold countless similar examples. How long will it take when the people can no longer speak on their ballots due to increasing barriers such as this bill is the new American dream to rule over a pile of ashes. I see people celebrate The murder of a CEO and I am afraid tech billionaires seem to read dystopian fiction and say, I bet I could be the overlord, but what happens to the overlord? What happens in our history lessons. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the conflicts and the hatred. Read one about the upheaval that led to the American and French Revolutions without representation ended the rallying cry. Hang on one second. We have a point of order, Representative Hawk. Let the murder of a CEO have to do with this bill? I'm building background as per some of the other things. I'm moving on. Hang on, hang on. We're moving on from that. Hang on, no, no, no, hang on. Representative Hawk, I appreciate your point of order. You're not necessarily wrong. Mr. Moore, I think. Or Miller, I'm sorry, your Remember that you're here to speak against Senate Bill 211. I understand that I think you're working toward a point, but let's, you know, let's try to get there. So uh you're recognized to continue with your remarks. I do have speech communication disabilities. I'm doing my best to word this as quickly as I can. Thank you. Uh, please do not take the people's voices away. It is a strategy known to fail. Today I heard a representative troubled by people voting, and I fear the consequences. I do not want to live in a world like that of a 100 years ago where people were forced to rise up against Nazi tyranny or the late 1700s when people had to take back voices from the British and French oligarchs and dictators. I do not want the state I love and call home to tread a path that has historically led to breakdowns of civility and due process, respectively, how long, respectfully, how long might we expect to suppress the voice of the constituency. I'm scared of what will happen in the future to our children's Arkansas and America. If this bill and others like it becomes law, and further suppresses voters' voices in our government. We must listen to the people's voices, but I cannot elaborate on a larger picture problem with my speech and argument is restricted to a narrow piece of it, and I'm not allowed to ask a representative why he is troubled by voters voting on a ballot. This is a big picture problem and we must be allowed to debate it in committee and On the ballot. Your power comes from the people you serve, and that applies to all branches and levels of our government. Thank you for your time. Please vote against these bills. Thank you, Mr. Miller, uh, seeing no questions by the committee next we have signed up to speak against the bill, Julia Taylor. Ms. Taylor, if you would identify yourself and any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your remarks. Uh, I'm Julia Taylor and I am here, um, just as a citizen, um, although I have been involved for the past 3 years as a volunteer on ballot initiatives, um, I'm gonna keep this short because mostly what I wanted to say has been said. But there were a few points that came up in questioning that uh I wanted to refer to, um, one was the point, um about uh Teenagers, uh, collecting, um, first of all, uh, as Ron stated, he is 18, that is still a teenager. Second of all, um, You know, I'm 52 and so someone who's 30 looks like a teenager to me, so I don't think you can judge who's a teenager just by looking at them. So, um, I wanted to state that also wanted to say, um, I think uh Representative Ray said that um or maybe not someone spoke and said that this past election cycle was the worst for fraud. And um I'd like to submit two things. One, that That might be because there were 7 ballot initiatives. Second, I'd like to say that um signatures can get thrown out for something as if somebody puts the date wrong, uh, somebody puts um the wrong county, so I, I think that when we're saying fraud, There, there's a lot of that that's simply mistakes. Um, I saw no evidence of fraud in the 3 years I've worked. Thank you. OK, thank you, Ms. Taylor, seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for your remarks. Next, we have TN Estelle. No, I'm sorry, she's only I only signed up to speak against Senate Bill 207, so. Next, Janet Dixon, no, that was a 4. Need to need to make better notes here. Next we have. Randy Sams signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Sams, if you would. Identify yourself, stating the organization you're here representing, you're recognized. Uh, my name is Randy Sams. I am uh just representing myself as a citizen of the state of Arkansas. Um, I'll start off by asking you to vote against these bills. We're going to focus on SB 211. The state of Arkansas, we have the Arkansas Constitution. I'm not going to read it to you, but the section we have Article 5, section 1, initiative and referendums. You can read that, but the section that I focused on was unwarranted restrictions prohibited. No law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons from giving or receiving compensation for circulating petitions in order to prohibit the circulation of petitions, nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of people in procuring petitions, but laws shall be enacted. Prohibiting And penalizing perjury, forgery, and all other felonies or other fraudulent practices in the securing of signatures or filing of petitions. The reason I'm against these bills is because to me we're putting another layer of government over oversight, OK? Another labor of government. We already have laws and codes in, in place covering this. Arkansas Code Title VII. Elections, Section 9, excuse me, section 7-9-103, signing a petition, penalty of falsification. Notice of suspected forgery. There's quite a bit of a section here. A person commits a class A misdemeanor if the person acting as a canvasser, notary, sponsor, or agent of the sponsor signs a name other than his or her own petition. Solicits or obtains a signature to a petition knowing that the person signing is not qualified to sign the petition. Knowingly has a person uh normally have or pays a person any form of compensation in exchange for signing a petition as a petitioner, knowingly misrepresents the purpose and effect of the petition or the measure affected of the purpose for the purpose of causing a person to sign a petition. Next one, Arkansas Code Title 7 elections, 7-9-108 circulating petition. It also covers In section B, it covers canvassers, current residents address. Now, this is gonna be a personal. I have uh signed many petitions and I've been a canvasser. Uh, in these County of Saline County. I am a big supporter of paper ballots. We may have disagreements with that, but that's OK. OK, that's why we have where we have the republic. You can you have your side, I have my side. I believe in paper ballots, but in Saline County we started a petition. We started a grassroots initiative for to get paper ballots to be voted on the election in November. The petition clearly states hand marked hand pay hand counted paper ballots, all right? We worked in June, July and August. Y'all remember how hot it was? I do, OK? Y'all got that water. I'm looking at that water right now. I wish I had a bunch of that when I was out there last year. But we thought we had enough signatures and we did. We had signatures that were for people that felt like we did. They were passionate to have paper ballots on. For election, OK? Unfortunately, There are laws that you guys have set up. I'm not gonna argue with them. It also says that if you're a paid petitioner, if you are going to be a canvasser, that you have to be a citizen of the United States and guess what? You also have to be a resident. Of the state of Arkansas. Now once upon a time there was a gentleman that was interviewed and he said it depends on what your definition of is is. This was thrown out based on what your definition of residence is. I'm not going to argue that. My point in this is this on August 29th, 2024, the Saline County clerk rejected 200,370 valid. Saline County voters' signatures because the solicitors, the canvassers were not residents. They didn't live here. They didn't pay taxes here. They didn't vote here. They lived in a hotel in Conway for 3 months. Does that make him a resident and you can debate that all you want to. I'm just saying that because of the mistake of whoever paid these people. I'm not for out of state petitioners. I'm not for out of state canvassers. If I believe in a initiative in the grassroots effort, strong enough, then I should stand up and be willing to go out and canvas, OK? My concern is almost 2400 signatures, valid signatures of people who had the same passion that I do for handmade hand marked, hand-counted paper ballots was thrown out. OK. Many of you guys are, are You've been champion for conservative values and the rights of Arkansas families for a long time, and I appreciate that, but I would still ask you to please vote against this SB 211. We don't need additional legislation. It's already a law on the books. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sam, seeing no questions about the committee, thank you for your remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Joey McCutchen. Thank Mr. McCutchen, if you would identify yourself and the name of any organization you may be here representing and then you're recognized to present your remarks. And thank you. My name's Joey McCutcheon, and I'm from Fort Smith. Uh, I'm representing, um, myself. And what I believe to be the citizens of Arkansas. I also represent the arch uh the Arkansas Transparency in government group. Um A conservative friend of mine, um, who happens to be a conservative senator, Senator, uh, when I signed a press release, asked me, why would you want to be associated with these groups. Because you see many of these folks, I wouldn't stand with them on any issue. And, and we fight routinely, but I did see that I was with them on the freedom of information Act issue and I gave that question by the senator, a lot of thought, and one of my favorite quotes is by Patrick Henry, and he said guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. And you see, I believe that, that one of those jewels is our initiative process, and I believe this body is approaching that jewel, and I believe that body approached the freedom of Information Act, which I consider to be another jewel. But what I would like to say. Is that We've heard about roadblocks, and to me that's what I see. Uh, this legislation is being roadblock after roadblock after roadblock, but we're here to talk on Senate bill 211. Uh, and I believe that smarter lawyers than I have, have just said that we have an affidavit and I stood on street corners this summer, hour after hour getting signatures. And I stood with 80 year old folks who, who also got signatures as canvassers, not as paid canvassers. Um, but it's just ordinary people engaging with the public and I still have in my mind standing on Garrison Avenue and people walking by and, and this elderly gentleman. Engaging in our process and and him trying to get these signatures and to me that did just leave left a mark, and it's why I'm here today, but what I want to say is I think Jen Stan for had a great idea, which would not be a roadblock, you see, because I, I believe in, in swearing under oath that, you know, we're following the rules like is in this quote true affidavit. I, I guess there's a definition of true affidavit. I, I thought that all affidavits were true. Uh, but, but putting that language, putting that language in the affidavit that we already have. I mean, isn't isn't that a reasonable and that's no roadblock, but that language gets in there that that you're complying with the rules of the, the state of Arkansas, and then that that does away with the roadblock issue, but You know, as a conservative, I would say we have too many laws. There's laws, laws, laws, and we've heard about them over and over and over again and uh we don't need another law. We need a Secretary of State's officer, whoever's not enforcing these laws if there is fraud to, to please enforce the laws that we have, uh, because we've got them on the books, so we don't need another law. My, my, my conservative friends, we, we need to enforce the laws that we already have and uh probably repeal a bunch of them too. Um, but, but I would, I would say that, that if there is a canvasser out there, um, who has a criminal intent to defraud the system. I would just ask you, is this bill? Is this bill really going to stop that? Because I don't think so. I think we already have, we already have the ability to stop it if, if we would just uh assert ourselves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCutcheon. Any questions about the committee? See, appreciate your remarks. Thank you. Next we have. Stacey I'm sorry. Digger Stacy Digger. Close it digs. That's what staff told me. I'm just. No worries, everybody gets it wrong. Uh, my name is Stacy Diggs. I'm from Peggot, Arkansas. Um, I came up today from uh Pigott to uh participate in the rally, and it just so happens that you guys were having this committee hearing today, and I've been following this bill, um, because I am somebody that has been actively involved in trying to be. a good citizen of our country, a good citizen of our state. I try to pay attention to what's going on, although I will say that it is very difficult sometimes to stay informed through all of the bureaucracy, um, and that's something that I see with this. I'm not gonna reiterate all of the points that other people have said much better than I have, but as somebody that's an average citizen, I try to be informed, I try to be involved and um On issue after issue after issue. I feel like it doesn't matter. There are so many ways that I can see where my voice is not nearly as loud as the lobbyists and all of these other entities that vie for your time and vie for your votes. And so to do this, people powered takes so much extra leg work. It takes us so much extra time and energy, and the bar keeps getting raised. I mean, it used to be 15 counties in Arkansas. that was the bar set for getting petitions in. Now it's 50. So the bar already got raised and, and it continues, the line gets moved and I think that it's ironic that in this particular time period that we're in, where we're talking about the over bureaucracy of regulatory agencies and on corporations, we are also talking about placing more bureaucracy on average people. who are already doing their best to be involved because we also have jobs and kids and lives and just trying to stay on top of what you guys are doing daily. That's a full-time job in itself. So I would appreciate representatives that are paying attention to what we're talking about here, cause overarchingly, what we're saying is common sense, and everybody knows that here. All of you know it. So that's all I got to say. Thank you. It's a thing no questions from the committee. Uh, we appreciate your testimony, mistakes. Um Next stop would be Jacob Plu Hardy. Speak against the bill. No, Jacob. Uh, peoples. Alright, thank you. Again, just if I don't need to remind you, but 211 you just keep your comments at 2:11. My name's Tobias, uh, peoples, and I'm here representing myself as a citizen of this great state. Um, I'm not gonna go too long. What I'm worried about is my voice getting thrown out, uh, because of somebody else's error. Or bad judgment, um. This last election in Pulaski County, um, the county clerk, uh, changed several people's. Voter registration, um. Without them knowing and caused a lot of issues there. I didn't have any issues. I was able to vote. But under the logic presented here. Because the county failed to um about the process in the right way, um, my vote would be thrown out, um, and if a canvasser Makes an error, screws up a few times. I don't want my signature to go uncounted, um. It doesn't seem like there's really any sort of system to let me know if that happens, um, apparently if I sign it a second time. I am going to be committing a misdemeanor, um. If a felony, my bad. Um. Yeah, I just, I just don't see where um Where that's fair. Uh, what, what's going on here is we're just adding more and more, uh, it's we're raising the bar. on People that don't need the bar raised anymore. It's been happening every session. For several years now. And I just don't see how this helps the people rule. That's it. OK, uh, seeing no questions from the committee. We appreciate your testimony and next up is. Marra seals. Good evening. My name is Kamara Seals. I am from Pine Bluff. I am the policy director at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. And um. I'm a grassroots. person. I'm a grassroots organizer. I've been doing this work. Since I was 13 with my mom. And I have some concerns about this bill. Now I'm not gonna reiterate everything that's been said, but I just want to highlight, uh, I just wanna highlight the part where I'm surprised that that this body is creating more bureaucracy. I'm really surprised by that you all have already heard testimony about the actual petition that we carry. I carry those petitions, uh, my colleagues, we carry those petitions, uh, and we, uh, we were with the education ballot measure and so we were getting signatures as well we after we would get 10 signatures. Of voters we had to get it uh notarized. We had to sign, uh, and I don't have one with me, you, they've passed them out, you all have them, so what so what SB I stop you for just one second? I apologize for interrupting, but the staff staff is handing out a handout that you'd given for the committee. Oh wonderful, I didn't know that. Alright, well my comments aren't on there, but they're, yeah, you see all these bad bills that we want you to vote against, but, but anyway, so, so what I, the part I want to to lift up like I was saying, uh, uh, you know, I'm I'm surprised that this body is interested in creating more bureaucracy, uh, what your, what SB 11. Is proposing, there's been plenty of testimony. It's already there. We already have an affidavit. We signed that affidavit. Now I know the the attorney uh came and gave you some additional uh words that you could put on that, but, but listen y'all, we just, we don't need any more bureaucracy. We have enough and all of these bills in this package that has been presented that we'll be presented the rest of this evening, it just piles on more and more and more and it's making it more challenging. For a system that, that is already intact, we don't have any fraud. In this process. And, and so there's not been evidence so far, uh, you know, I did hear the secretary of state, you know, present, you know, their, their information, but the truth be told, they don't like it either. Now they can't tell you that. I can tell you they don't like all of this either, but, but we, like I said, we already have. What you all are trying to do with SB 11, OK? And we wanna make sure we protect the process, OK? Uh, allowing us, uh, canvassers to go out there collect signatures of registered voters. We're not, we're not going intentionally do anything that's going to harm the process because we put a lot of work in a lot of time, a lot of energy, it's a lot of organizing. It's a lot of work. We're not gonna do anything y'all. Anything that jeopardizes the efforts when we're trying to get something on the ballot. We won't we want people to be hurt, uh, we support direct democracy. We are direct democracy. Uh, we believe the people rule, that's our, that's our motto here in the state of Arkansas. The people rule, and we have a process that's working. It works. It works. So having said that, thank you for your time. Like I said, I don't want to ramble. Over other things that have already been said, um. That concludes what I'll say. I will come back because I wanna say some things about SB uh 08208 um. So I'll, I will come back. All right, seeing no questions by the committee, thank you, Ms. Seals and we look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you. I'm not going anywhere. And it looks like. The last person we have signed up to speak against SB 211 is. Rochelle Britton. Help us said that correctly. I If you would state your name and any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. OK. Uh And I pressed the button. No. Yes, my name is Rochelle Britton. I'm here as a private citizen, though I have did work didn't work with capes in 2023 and Kwame on several petitions with Mr. Abdul Bay on some on several Referendum petitions in 2021. I, you know, a lot of what I really wanna say the specific to this bill is has already been said, we have an affidavit. But I want to read you some additional language for Article 5, Section 1. The other one said one of the, one read another section. That one of the previous guys read another section, but I was remind, remind you of something else. In the verification paragraph of Article 5, Section 1. It says, It, it, it says petitions may be. It says it gives the decision, it describes the affidavit that goes on the petition, but then it goes on to say, and no other affidavit or verification shall be required to establish the genuineness of such signatures. Just because The law. The lectures. It's not just the, the additional petition is not just The additional signature and I, I, I have a few disabilities myself, so I'm kind, so I'm stumbling. But the, the, the additional affidavit is not just more bureaucracy as I'm reading it, it's unconstitutional. Now, I know there may have been some cases where they've kind of argued around that with the Particularly with the affidavit required for page solicitors, but I believe the pain's it, but I believe, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever been specifically asked to question this and they certainly, and of course they certainly haven't been asked. about this one. I happen to be a licensed attorney, but not an active practice, but I think you're going, but I think you're gonna But I think this affidavit is totally unnecessary. It says You affidavit. Do you say they already sign an affidavit, every solicitor, and I've solicited some. My Sign an affidavit that is that is sworn. With a, with a notary stamp. When the notary signing off on it. For before a notary. That my that says the Constitution says that's the only affidavit you're supposed to have. They have the affidavit if you want to improve the affidavit as Miss Sandifer said, prove the affidavit, then, then put it in that affidavit. Don't create another piece of paper that just, that just gums up the process some more. Ms. and I also particularly remember Miss Folks saying she was about the other some of their statements, some of what she said, and I, I can tell, I can tell you from my own personal experience. Most of the people who were for this. We're opposed to the abortion amendment. They, and it, I don't recall the the people for the abortion amendment. Causing a ruckus. I only recall the people against it, causing a ruckus. And I, and I actually saw, and I actually had to walk past some of them to sign that amendment. My sign that petition myself. That is not health. This, the purpose of bottom line is the purpose of this is to throw, just throw another thing gum up in the works to keep the to keep. Certain Actions from being even presented to people and it's on both sides. You had the anti-abort, you know, the anti the abortion amendment was there on the left, excuses on the left, but on the right, you also, you also had the uh paper ballot initiative. One of, one of those guys spoke, spoke on the paper ballot initiative. They, they Now I don't agree with the paper ballot initiatives, but They, they got cheated too. We need to. I urge you to vote no on 211. Thank you, Ms. Britton. All right, that, uh, concludes all of the individuals we have signed up to speak for and against the bill. This time I would recognize Representative Underwood and Senator Hammer. To close for your bill. Well, thank you committee. uh, I will say thank you for taking the time to hear everybody out and and take this issue seriously. I appreciate your time. Um, I was over there taking notes and I know I took about 3 or 4 pages of notes and I know Betty was really nervous about that and so now I intend to go through every single note that I took, um, no, I'm kidding. I will not do that. Um, I do want to address one issue that kind of came up about the duplicative nature of the affidavit. um, I, I, and I, I disagree with that because if you look at the the current affidavit on the petition. um, and I appreciate, uh, Representative Mayberry letting me look at that. It's much more narrow in scope, so it's much more about the verification of signatures and then making sure that the ballot titles attached to it, whereas this affidavit is about what the canvasser's conduct is, and so it's broader if you, if you look at the, the bill itself, it talks about um all the laws regarding canvassing and it goes on, so I won't read that, uh, again, but Um, you know, in closing, I would just say I don't think this is overly burdensome. Uh, we ask people to sign affidavits all the time. I used to when I was in private practice, people would sign verifications on complaints that their statements were true and accurate. Uh, I think that that's a good thing to have people do to deter fraud and ensure that this process has validity and instills the public trust. Um, and then I think, uh, Senator Hamburger may have some comments, and then I'll, I'll finish up. Thank you Mr. Chair, just a few things. I want you to think about the totality of the conversation today. For one thing, there's been statements that there's been no fraud that has occurred, yet at the same time there have been people that have been accused of lying. Uh, the second thing I want you to think about is this, uh, as far as the affidavit on the front end, that is the intent to follow the law, that would be the check signing a single piece of paper on the back end. I have followed the law. That's the balance. So we have checks and balance and that we have it on the front end, we have it on the back end, and a lot of things can happen in between. What's done on the back end is what closes the door in the event somebody has found to be guilty or is being investigated for it, that would be the single piece of paper. The other thing I want you to pay attention to and ask is this, uh this is constitutional. It's been reviewed by our attorney General's office who is deemed to be const institutional stands ready to defend it in court. So as far as constitutionality, it stands on the merit as it is drafted, and the last thing I would share with you is this. When the conversation started against it, they were totally against the affidavit, but as the conversation progressed and those that spoke against it, all of a sudden they were willing to concede and say, why don't you just put it on the current one. So I think that speaks to the merit of the argument. Do we need or do we not? They have conceded that we need it. They'd like. On each sheet of paper, and what we're saying is let's put it on a single sheet of paper, and that would be what would provide the evidence of everything that had happened before that. And Mr. Chairman and committee members, thanks for the latitude to share and appreciate a good vote on the bill. And with that, uh, committee, I'd make a motion to pass. Alright, Representative Underwood has closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion, Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. So, you know, I think it's very telling that the sponsors of the bill have not indicated any interest in the proposed amendment to put the language they have expanding the uh items sworn in the affidavit into the petition sheet, and I think the reason is very clear because they would do very different things. So with the current affidavit does is it Um, requires the canvasser to verify under oath that the person signed their name in the presence of the canvasser that the signature was genuine to the best of their knowledge that they're a registered voter in the state of the county, to the best of your knowledge, and that the, the copy of the popular name ballot title, and checks were attached. It does broaden it as Representative Underwood said to all Arkansas laws regarding canvassing, perjury, forgery, and fraudulent practices as well as the Constitution. But the big difference is in the consequences if the affidavit is not a true affidavit, and that's important for a reason I'll discuss in a second, but right now if a person signs that affidavit and there's a problem with one of the signatures that signature may be disqualified if that is a fraudulent signature, but not all of the signatures obtained by the canvasser, and that's why they don't, in my opinion, want to put it on the sheet because this has a much broader impact. that broader impact is if, if a canvasser gets 1000 signatures, and there is one. Tiny technicality in a law that they did not properly follow. It doesn't, there's no materiality, by the way. It doesn't have to be a material violation, just any violation of Arkansas constitution or any law in any of these large categories, all of the signatures that they collected will not be counted, and that's why everyone keeps saying that this is going to, you know, effectively shut people out of the process. It definitely will because if it's sweeping consequence points. And again, I mean, I think what what uh Jennifer and others have said would make a lot of sense if your goal was to reduce fraud. put it into the sheet, the existing affidavit strengthen that if you want to strengthen that, broaden that if you want to broaden that, and then you may have a a slightly increased ability to reduce fraud, but I, again, what they're doing with this second affidavit is really going to have a much broader impact than just reducing fraud. It's going to suppress the ability of people to get their voice heard in this petition process. The true affidavit thing I want to just comment on, uh, it is, it's because affidavit is supposed to be a statement that's true. It's sworn under oath in writing. That's what an affidavit is. I have to think that a true affidavit means that it leaves some discretion to the Secretary of State, if, for example, and again, I as a committee member believe I can say what I want here in these remarks. If the other bills pass and some canvasser does not say the ballot title exactly right and that's on that's filmed. Then all of the signatures they got will be thrown out because it will be in the Secretary of State's opinion that that is not a true affidavit. It gives flexibility in interpreting the statute to the Secretary of State where that might not exist exist if it didn't say true affidavit because if they submit an affidavit, they would have satisfied their uh their obligations as a canvasser if it doesn't say true affidavit, but if it says true affidavit, then the Secretary of State can say, well, this isn't a one because of this film that I saw or this documentation or whatever evidence they have and therefore throw all of these signatures out. So again, this is really broad, this is absolutely going to change quite a lot and then, and I don't, I, I don't agree that this is just the, the, um, you know, mildest of the bills here. It's a real key part of an overall package which is going to really change the way we do direct democracy or don't do it here in Arkansas. So please vote now. heart, no, no, no, no, no. Uh, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, I'll be brief, but um I wish we'd had more time to really flesh out the problem that exists with Signatures that are being gathered because we do have a problem and You know, Representative Clowney made the observation that not all of the mistakes or or whatever is attributable to fraud and, and I, I agree with that. There's a debate to be had about what percentages fraudulent, what percentage are honest mistakes, what percentages incompetence. Um, and all of that, but the reality is we've heard through this process, through the committee on the, the testimony on the Senate side, and I've just. Over the last election cycle, I was inundated with people who were contacting me about instances that they saw where, you know, like, like what was testified to earlier where there were petitions just left on the table, unattended inside a um a storefront canvassers telling people, instructing voters that they could sign more than one time, um, reports of canvassers just blatantly lying or misleading voters about what the measure actually does, um, I've, I have gathered signatures before, um, I gathered signatures in 2016 on the tort reform amendment. I would have no, I would have no hesitation signing an affidavit to this effect. In fact, you know, every time we file a campaign finance report, there's language at the end of it that says I certified to the best of my knowledge and belief that the information disclosed in this report is accurate, true, uh, uh, and you can't even file the report until you Check that box. There's similar language at the bottom of your statement of financial interest. This type of uh certification I think is pretty common and um that's the Secretary of State's office testified, it's gonna be a one page uh form where you simply certify that you followed the law, and so, um, I'm, I'm gonna be a yes vote on this bill. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be quick, just, just a couple of things. Um, first, I'd say we don't actually sign things that that do exactly this because we don't sign true affidavits, at least to my knowledge, that's not a term I've ever heard before. I think the question isn't, um, nobody's saying that a canvasser isn't going to be willing to sign these. I haven't heard that argument, the argument is about what happens after this thing is signed, um, and I think Representative Collins did a great point, did a great job pointing out that what happens is it is up to somebody. We don't know who to determine whether this affidavit is true or not. We don't know what that means. And then if it is found to be untrue, uh, not only a few signatures are thrown out, but every single signature that has been collected by that canvasser, um, is thrown out for reasons we're not really sure about, and then the folks who have had their signatures thrown out are not notified, are not given any opportunity to correct that. So that's why I'll be in now. Thanks. All right, seeing no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion of due pass for Senate Bill 211. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Ya's habit, congratulations, Representative Underwood, you passed your bill. Next we have Senate Bill 207 and 208 representative. Do you have a preference as to which one to present next. Uh, I'm talking with Senate Bill 207. OK. Thank you. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 207. Sure. And before we start, um, can I bring the Secretary of State back thank you. OK right I'm Leslie. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 207. Thank you, Chairman Gasway. Um. What Senate Bill 207 does is it requires the canvasser to inform potential signers that petition fraud is a class A misdemeanor. The notification can be done verbally or it can be done in writing. Um, I think as we've seen or we heard earlier, we've had some issues with canvassers tricking or misrepresenting um to our candidates that uh are tricking Arkansans into signing petitions that they've already signed or cannot legally sign. And so I think this kind of instills the uh the thought that, uh, these are serious government documents. Um, as I kind of, I know hours ago, kind of gave you uh why I thought these bills were, were good. Number one, it prevents it deters fraud act fraudulent activity. It increases transparency because every person is now aware of the importance of these documents and discourages deceptive practices. Uh, and also it protects the democratic process by by providing voter confidence that in our system. Um, I think it's a straightforward step to provide this notification and I think it's a minimal measure, and Senator Hammer, do you have any? A more marks, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the House member. He's done a great job. Thank you. I'm open for questions. Representative Underwood has explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so I think I, I heard you say that canvasser fraud was the concern. Maybe I, I misheard that is the concern to um to thwart or reduce cannabis or fraud or petition or fraud. This is to keep people from signing inaccurately, so signing multiple times or signing other people's names and so, or, you know, committing fraud of that nature essentially. So just warning people that signing something or committing some sort of fraud, um, could be a class A misdemeanor. OK, so the only, the only people this will really impact will be the people who are trying to sign the petition, right? I mean, you're not really trying to Reduce canvass or fraud by having a canvasser announce the, you know, potential criminal penalties here, right? When you say impact. Can you elaborate? Well, I mean, I'm just trying to understand it I think what you're saying is that it will impact by reducing it, right? Is, isn't that your point? Well, I think it would put people on notice that if you did something fraudulently or did, you know, something that you shouldn't have been doing, that could be a problem, yeah, so do you think that this will result in some people not wanting to sign at all because they'll be concerned that they're about to commit a crime unknowingly. No, so I think if I'm understanding you correct your uh question, are you kind of referencing a chilling effect for this. So, um, now I respect that question, you know, I think we do have a First Amendment right here. We also have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And so when I go to purchase a firearm, there is a disclaimer on the document that says that you certify that the questions that you're asking or that the answers that you gave is true and accurate. And then also warns you that it's a felony if you conduct, do certain activity. And so I think that's an important constitutional right that we have, um, that has not been deemed unconstitutional to give that warning. Uh, now, you know, maybe Hunter Biden or somebody may I'll take that seriously, but I think most people would take that seriously. And so I don't think that this creates a chilling effect, uh, just because you provide this warning. Would you want to provide a written warning like that, or do you think a verbal warning is warranted in this case, but not in the Second Amendment case you. Well, this allows verbal or written. OK, well, if it's impossible. Right. The verbal notification is impossible. Well, I, I, I guess what was your question? What's your, I'm saying you you referred to a written warning with your 2nd Amendment example, but this is a verbal warning, right? Sure. So why the difference? I probably, you know, I think being providing a verbal warning might be quicker. Um, I don't know if that's, that's, uh, and I don't think that's really a problem. I think I timed it when I did it. I think it takes about 3 or 4 seconds to, to give that rewarding hammer do you have a I'd welcome the Secretary of State's input, but I think the reason that's in there is in the event you're dealing with somebody that may be deaf and you're not able to do sign language, you'd be able to hold something up or you would have something that would hold that up so that they could read it, meaning the reason, meaning the interpretation of impossible, is that what you're referring to with that? I believe that's what it's in there for is so that we can cover all bases so that nobody is discriminated against or nobody is with unintended consequences would be held, you know, liable if, if, uh, For example, they couldn't hear. You couldn't do sign language. Here it is. So in almost all cases it'll be verbal unless it's absolutely impossible in like the situation you gave, that's, that's the reason we put it in there just to make sure all of our bases are covered so nobody be discriminated against or anyone would be unintentionally or intentionally either one harmed. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you recognized. Thank you. um, thank you, Representative Underwood for um your answers, I, I guess, um I'm gonna say the quiet part out loud, right? We've heard um from a number of folks, including one letter that I think everybody on this committee received that said the following dark forces are using the ballot initiative process to inflict harm like marijuana gambling and abortion on our citizens. My question for you, especially in light of, of just making a Hunter Biden joke. How are we supposed to feel as if this is not a political attempt to chill the ballot initiative process. Well, again, I don't think that it's going to chill anybody who's chill anybody's um from signing it if they're not doing something that would be an error Follow up. You're recognized. Then can you help me understand uh what about this is keeping dark forces from using the ballot initiative process. Well, I can't, I can't speak to the comments of somebody else's remarks that I didn't say, I didn't say that in my opening or anything, so I know you didn't, but I'm asking you to speak on it now. Do you think that that, that, that folks are using the ballot initiative process in that way. Uh, well, I think obviously that there's some, there's been people who are committing fraud or deceiving people, so that's why I brought several of these bills, but again, I can't speak specifically to what, what those remarks were. My question is, do you think it should be harder to get something on the ballot in general that it currently is. And do you think this, and do you think that this particular uh policy will make it harder. No, I don't think that providing a warning that it's a class A misdemeanor will make it harder to get something on the ballot. Representative Meeks, you're recognized chairman, uh, who would be responsible for training the canvassers that they need to uh to do this and just, how do you see that? Taking place to make sure that if this is passed, that it's actually followed through on. Uh representative makes the sponsors would be responsible for training their their canvass just like they are right now. All right, I have a quick question. Um, So Representative Clowney referenced an email. a letter that I guess people on the committee got about the dark forces, but we just heard a lot of testimony from individuals who were concerned about paper ballots. We heard testimony from people that were concerned about a host of different issues coming from different sides of the political spectrum about how these potential bills might affect their particular interest, uh, is that fair to say? Yeah, so, yes, I think that's accurate. All right. And then with regard to and I do have a question just about the language of the bill. It talks about Uh, A person acting as a canvasser shall not obtain a signature for a petition, so this is on the canvasser. shall not obtain a signature for a petition without disclosing to the potential petitioner that petition fraud is a class a misdemeanor and then it talks about the notification, etc. but I don't ever see where a petition fraud is specifically defined and then in section 10, it talks about a canvasser fails to disclose to a potential petitioner that petition fraud is a class A misdemeanor, but what exactly is petition fraud? Is that set forth somewhere else in the code? Yes, sir, yes, Mr. Chair, um, petition fraud in this case is on the part of the designer would be on the part of the signer, so it most often take the form of um intentionally signing multiple times or um signing for another person who's not there signing for someone other than yourself. It's putting them on notice to, um, that conduct on a signer is the is the class A misdemeanor. Right, I understand that. I mean, but it sounds like in section one, it's about. The canvas or a person acting as a canvasser shall not do this. Uh Without disclosing to the potential petitioner that petition fraud is a class A misdemeanor. But my again my question remains, what is petition fraud? Is that specifically defined term in another area of the code and what specific conduct constitutes petition fraud. The requirement on the canvaser is only to put the signer. On notice of the petition fraud, petition fraud, uh, generally for it being a class A misdemeanor speaks to the signer rather than the canvasser's conduct. Fair enough. OK, I'm not, I'm not trying to argue that. My question is very simply is petition fraud defined elsewhere in the code as a specifically defined course of conduct. Yes, Mr. Chair. OK, thank you very much. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I'm looking at the, the statute that outlines petition fraud and petition fraud can be committed by a canvasser or it can be committed by a petitioner, a signer, um, So this is in my mind, this is sort of the other side of the coin from the previous bill, whereas the previous bill was warning the canvasser, um, This is warning the signer and the the three things that it lists in the statute are, and this, this is a question for Secretary of State's office, probably Ms. Bellamy, when I read these, I guess my question is going to be, have you, have you ever seen these things in reviewing signatures. signs the name other than his or her name to a petition. Have you ever seen that? Yes, Representative Ray B signs his or her name more than one time to a petition. Have you ever seen that? Representative and signs a petition when he or she is not legally entitled to sign the petition. Have you ever seen that? Yes, sir. OK, so Um Uh I guess the rest of my point there was more of a point. It's not a question, so I'm gonna save it for later. All right, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Ms. Bellamy, can you walk me through? I know that a lot of what we just talked about in the previous bill was um an attempt to kind of lessen the workload on y'all in a short period of time, you have to authenticate things. Uh, I guess I just don't know, and maybe this is a question for anybody, actually, any of y'all at the end of the table. What does this look like? What do reports of a violation of this um new policy look like, like I'm imagining there's gonna be a lot of like iPhone videos submitted to the Secretary of State claiming folks didn't give these verbal notifications, um, can you just help me understand how this how these are going to be decided and who is gonna do that work in our very limited time and resources. Representative, you're, you're right, it would come from most likely eyewitness accounts, uh, video, uh, recordings, there are various um means where it would be um a citizen or somebody reporting um that the notification of the warning had not been given, um, and it is, um, it can be tough on the Secretary of State's office to review, um, The petitions turned in in 30 days, but that's, that's our duty, um, and so uh we'd fulfill that duty. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I guess my question goes to a line 32 where it says a verbal notification is impossible. Written notification with a document that is provided separately from all other petition materials. Is that is that document given to you by the Secretary of State, or is that something that has created just to be able to tell that person that's that that can't hear that this is a violation. It would just be a separate, separate document that like you said, we just put them on notice that it would be a violation. But would that be from the Secretary of State, or would that just be somebody that just does an Excel or Word document says. Misdemeanor. It would be, it would be just the we would we promulgate a rule that shows it would just Basically the latter. OK, um, My, my, I, I guess I, I'm just looking at simplicity here. I mean, I think it's a, it's a good, it's a good bill, but at the same time, like, rather than just doing Two different things here. Why wouldn't we just put it all on written on the, on where you're you're signing, why wouldn't we just put it on there and call it the rationale with that is the fear that it would be uh hidden, uh, much like the petition itself could be, it would be buried in paperwork, hidden under things, um. Under the table, it would be easy to kind of check a box and still uh it wouldn't accomplish the point of the bill, um, and that's why it's the verbal notification, but if they can't, they get a separate piece of paper where it's clear, it's very short, um, and, and you would be put on notice. Thank you. May I also add to that, please. Remember that the impossible is in there uh to be able to assist those that may be hearing impaired. One of the things that has been well documented is That the the the um Uh, initiative is actually supposed to be attached to each sheet of paper and we have found that there's a large case or a great number of times when not even the form, the initiative is attached to make it available for the individual to read, so that's why the verbal option is in there because it is going to be the least evasive, but yet we want to make, you know, arrangements for those that that may not be able to, but I think to the secretary uh uh to Nathan. issues that that can be worked out through the rules process. Thank you. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in Representative Ra's questions to Leslie Bellamy about petition fraud. It's interesting because he left out that the person has to do those things knowingly. So when he asked, do you know of any people who have signed her, his or her name to more than one or more than one time to a petition, that's not petition fraud. They have to knowingly do that. And I understand, you know, it's just an error, but it's actually really interesting and illustrative because, you know, you're going to have these canvassers talking about, you know, crimes to petitioners and it creates a lot of opportunity for mistakes of exactly that nature and confusion and and chilling, but the thing I want to ask you about is When I looked up that statute of petition fraud, petition fraud is a class D felony. So why are we talking about petition fraud, you have to say it's a class A misdemeanor. Well, it just depends, there are certain levels of fraud that could be um a de-felony at the lowest level, um, it would be in a misdemeanor. So I think it's just putting the individual on notice that hey, at, at the least if you did uh fraud related to petitions, it would at least be in a misdemeanor. It's really just the point is to put them on notice to that that would be a crime. It's not OK. In 55555601, the section called petition fraud, says petition fraud is a Class D. me. Just says that So you want us to go on here and tell people it's the class A misdemeanor. Well, again, it depends on the conduct representative. So at, at the lowest form, like for the example of maybe just a signer just on his or her individual um name to do so knowingly, um, that would just be a class A misdemeanor. Respectfully, I don't think it could be more clear in statute black letter law, petition fraud is a Class D felony. I mean, I don't, I don't know what you're talking about, frankly, and no offense, but I would that's what it says. I think this bill is fatally flawed, if I may. We're just trying to put the um signer on notice, um, the lowest level of fraud related to signing a petition fraudulent would be a classic misdemeanor. Nope. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Uh, just a representative Collins's point. There's a separate set of law. Section 79, 101 or 127 or 103 signing of a petition, penalty for falsification. No it's a suspected forgery, petition fraud listed as a class A misdemeanor, so to Nathan, I apologize, I don't remember your last name, but to Nathan's point, that the lowest form, it's a class A misdemeanor. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, going back to my, I guess my question for Miss Bellamy again. Does, does it sound right that there are 7 petitions since 2016 that have been turned in in which more than 2000 duplicate signatures were submitted. Does that sound right? I would, I would have to look that up, but I mean it's close, yes. So to Representative Collins's point, you know, he, he pointed out that you have to knowingly uh you know, there is a mental state there that has to be present for there to be a crime committed, which is true, um, but in some of these, uh, with some of these issues, I mean, I'll just give you a couple of examples. The Arkansas medical marijuana Amendment of 2024, 5,839. d up lic ate signatures. 2018, the Arkansas term Limits Amendment 5,231 duplicate signatures. Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act of 2016, 10,331 duplicate signatures. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016, 4,044 duplicate signatures. Is it a fair observation? I mean, obviously not all of these are fraudulent, um, but it is, it is unknowable what percentage of them are attributable to an honest mistake, due or due to an intentional act. Do you think it is at least possible that alerting people to the fact that, you know, you can be committing an offense if you commit petition fraud, do you think that it's reasonable to assume that that will reduce The number of duplicate signatures because people will be inclined to not do that. Um, if they know they've signed before I think one of the main things that it does would be to put, as Nathan said, the signer on notice that if they think they've signed it before or if they know they have, you know, you could be really for an issue and want to think that you're helping by signing more and more and not really understand the process and I think that they would knowingly do that on purpose to try to, you know, but they might try to help their cause. So I also think that you might catch a busy mom, you know, coming out of a grocery store or, and you might not realize that you'd signed that one, especially when there's multiple petitions for the same issue like we've had more than one marijuana petition before. So I think what this does is it simply puts that signer on notice, but it also helps the canvassers that are the honest canvassers to allow that person to know so that they don't get bad signatures on their. stuff that they're swearing and affirming to. All right, thank you. May I add to that Representative Ray. You know, which is the lesser of the two for somebody to do something which they currently could be charged under the law to do anyway without being warned or to warn them so that they don't inadvertently sign or that they don't intentionally sign so that if they do intentionally sign, it gives the prosecutor greater ability to prosecute, which is one of the areas where we've struggled in because we are giving them this warning. I think the way I would look at it is we're not impunitive in reality we're just alerting you like a watchman on the wall that you need to be conscientious about what you're signing, the ones that have been deemed to be the busy mom or whatever, that'll be sorted out, but it's the ones that are doing it intentionally that this is intended to catch and be able to give us the ability to look at something and say you didn't do it ignorantly because you were warned. Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so with respect to what Representative Rose mentioned, that is not petition fraud according to the law. The law, the, the code mentions petition fraud in one section with the title petition fraud. It's at 555-601, and it says it is a class D felony. And the chair asked earlier is petition fraud defined in code. It is defined in code, but it's defined as a class D felony. So I would again reiterate, um, you know, the bill really doesn't make sense by requiring a canvasser to disclose the petition fraud, it's a type of crime that it is not. I mean, I would respectfully ask if you know, you guys would consider taking the bill down to fix it because I really think this is a serious issue that if, I mean, if you want the bill to make sense, it would need to be fixed. Represented the, the bill is meant to just really quickly and and simply put a possible signer on notice to the, the fact that it's serious and that uh petition fraud could be a criminal charge, and the term fraud in the misdemeanor section there where someone could be held to a class A misdemeanor. It says petition forgery, but we're trying to use commonplace language that anybody could understand. And it's specifically geared at putting the signer on notice and typically in the Arkansas code, um, when it's the signer himself or herself who's, you know, committing some form of fraud just in their own individual signature. That's a class A misdemeanor. It is the least of which somebody involved in the process could be held to and that's, that's the point of the bill, um. So that's why that language is there and the class A misdemeanor is referenced. Even if petition forgery were petition fraud, which I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. It's still not accurate to say the petition fraud is a class of a misdemeanor. If that were true, you could perhaps say it's at least a class of misdemeanor, but it's just, it's not a class I misdemeanor, it's in fact a class D felony, um, and I, you know, I don't know how many times I can say it, it just is. It is the bill is just misdrafted. Respectfully. Well, I guess it's the question I'm looking at the code here that Rose pointed out, and it does say under 79103 and Collins, I know that you've kind of addressed this, so just to just a question, it does say a person commits a class A misdemeanor if the person knowingly and then there's a list there, so I think we may just have to agree to disagree there, but I'm open to, um, discuss that with you further. Um, and then, well, that's all I have to add on that. All right, any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing no further questions by the committee before, before everyone leaves the table. Let me just say that I do think. That Representative Collins has a point that uh it is also pretty clear that Um Make sure I've got the code section right again. I believe it was entitle 5. 5 555-601. That, um, It appears to be a class D felony, and I think if we're going to be giving these warnings to people, we at least need to be accurate. Um, is there any objection to just uh let, let me also say this, I'm not sure that we're gonna finish tonight. Uh, we still got another bill to go uh we do have a scheduled committee meeting for Wednesday and so was there any objection to just pulling this down to make sure that we have the language right that we've got a lot of session left. We're gonna be here at least the middle of April, if not longer. So I think it's just important that we get it right. I think represents representative Collins has made a A valid point, uh, but I'll yield to your wishes at your bill, so certainly, however you would like to handle it is up to you. No, uh, Chairman Gaz, I appreciate that. I would say, you know, look, it's, it's up to the will of the committee, so I'm, I'm happy to uh to do that and to to make sure that that is accurate and that I have no issue with that, but I would ask Chairman, just for clarification, if we were to do that or not take a vote today, obviously we have people here who are are signed up to speak for or against, uh, would they still be permitted to, I don't want to, you know, waste their time of them coming here. Speak, you know, not get to speak and then have to come back again. Maybe they won't do that anyway, but I just wanted to see how we would handle that process. Yeah, so I think the primary objection for from what I've heard in the questions and what I expect the testimony to be will be the fact that this notice has to be given, whether the notice says a misdemeanor, the felony or a crime may constitute a crime. I mean, there's any kind of number of ways that you could. Put it, uh, we just want to make sure that it's accurate. However, we however it stated, and so I think the primary objections are going to be that the notice has to be given in the first place and so if people want to state those objections, uh, we're certainly here. I will, I will note it looks like we may have lost some committee members. I'm not, I'm not sure, uh, and, and also, uh, my understanding is that there is a committee. Another committee meeting uh tonight, so I'm not sure how the committee would like to handle that, but I'm open to suggestions by the committee. Well, just, just before I'll just say yeah, I'm, I'm open to whatever the committee wants, wants to do, what they're open to. I'm happy to, um, uh, to pull that down and I totally agree there's a, there's a number of ways you could word that and so I don't have any objection to that, but I would, you know, if people, if the committee is open to it and if people want to speak, I'm not opposed to hearing them speak, obviously, but if we want to do that again on Wednesday, that's fine too. All right, thank you, Representative Underwood, and again, I'm, I'm open to the will of the committee, Representative Ray. Uh just my two cents, I think given that there's some confusion about, it looks like we we may have conflicting statutes since we have another bill that's ready to present, it may just be good to do two and and since the hour is getting late, it may just be best to do 208 now and then come back for 207 on Thursday. Or Wednesday whenever we meet again. Yeah All right, hang on 11 2nd. So Representative Ray has at least made a suggestion, uh, but I do want to hear from other committee members, Representative Rose. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just quick question on this is we're deliberating uh codes in different sections, uh, to representative Collins' initial question. Uh, in section 2 of the bill, it's specifically states Arkansas Code 7-9-103, and I'm not assuming to have a better legal mind than he does. I just wanted to know if he had seen that and if taking that into consideration, alleviated his concern in the cross reference that he brought up to a different section mentioning petition fraud. No You want to put that on the record? No, it's it's section one, where references petition fraud is a class A misdemeanor petition fraud is only again to find one place in the code, and that is in the section that I referenced where it says it's Class D felony, so, uh, that doesn't, that doesn't save it. Thanks. So I have uh reviewed the section that Representative Collins refers to, and it does state very clearly the petition fraud is a class D felony. I agree that it does look like there are some kind of conflicting areas of the code. Representative Rose raises a good point that this were specifically amending, you know, in, in section one of the bill 79103 as it relates to canvassers. And his question I think is, is, you know, is it, does that particular section only apply to the class A misdemeanor version of petition fraud because there is another reference in the code in another section other than 555 section that I think Representative Collins is referring to. I don't know if Senator Hammer or Representative Underwood has an answer to that. If you don't have an answer to that or someone from the Secretary of State's office, if you don't have an immediate answer to that, I think that's probably further reason why we just ought to pull this down and make sure that we get it right, but I'm I would like to hear from you guys. Yeah, I was, you know, I think that the based off of the conversation here, I don't really think it's a bad idea to get further clarification on that. I don't think that's a difficult thing to go through, um, and so I'm, I'm happy to do that. I don't think that's a problem, but I do appreciate uh everybody's input and and clarifying that issue. OK, so it sounds like with regard to Senate Bill 207. That the wishes of the sponsor is to pull this down briefly and we can bring it back after there's been some further research and uh address this on Wednesday. Representative Underwood. Yes, I think Senator Hammer had, uh, a comment as well, but Senator Hammer, I was just going to weigh in. I'd rather pull it down if the chair would allow and co-sponsor here would, would be, I don't think that's going to alleviate the concerns of what people are here to speak against it. I think that's a separate matter, but because of the integrity of the and what it's intended to do. I'd rather pass through having that resolved. Now we may come back and nobody have their mind changed once we consult with our legal side of things, but I think at least we'll be able to come back and present a solid argument if that's the way and then it can be voted up and down on the rest of the merits of the bill. Thank you. All right, thank you, Senator Hammer, and I. I think that's probably a wise approach. So with that, it sounds like that uh sponsors are pulling down Senate Bill 207 temporarily uh to do some more research and then we'll bring that back on Wednesday. Representative Hawk, you had. Question, I, I was gonna, um, reiterate what Representative Ray said. I think that because of the amount of people that were here and there was a lot of people that left earlier after that first bill that said that they wanted to speak for these next two bills. Why not, why not start this thing on Wednesday when we have a fresh day, middle of the day where we can hear both this bill and the next bill, being that it's getting light in the evening. Certainly appreciate that perspective, again, I'm, I'm open to the will of the committee on that, Representative Wooldridge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, would it, would someone that came back on Wednesday when we heard this for a second time, not be able to speak if they're allowed to speak today. And my point to that being we've got people that are here that have signed up to be heard. I say we allow them to be heard and then anyone who left earlier or was unable to or for whatever reason, wanted to be heard again on Wednesday, may get a second bite at that apple, but we at least allow the people that are in the room to be heard. Representative Collins, I would just echo what Representative Ray originally said, I think they, they want to take down 207 right now, but I think we should probably hear SB 208 because all these people have stayed here. It's a version of what Representative Walter was saying, but not to hear it on 207 just to move on to 208. We do still have 208 pending. We have the sponsors here. We have people who have stuck around for the purpose of testifying against 208. And they're here tonight and Uh, we're here to work, so. Um With that What is the will of the committee? Is there a motion to take any particular action, Representative Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go home too, but I would rather take care of the people. Let's, uh, here 208, hear what they have to say about that and then come back when they make changes for the other one. All right, is that a motion? That's a motion. Representative Crawford has made a motion that we continue on and here Representative here. Here's Senate Bill 208 tonight, uh, is there Any discussion on the motion Representative Rose. Just asking. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just asking for clarification. Are we considering 207 officially pulled down for the day. Is that correct? I believe so. OK. Like in the motion is now to hear 208, correct? Alright, thank you. All right, we got a motion to soldier on and continue to hear 208 tonight, Representative Wooldridge, you have a discussion on that motion? I do. I just wanted to clarify. I, I'm all for here in 208 and hearing the testimony that that people have signed up to speak for or against that. I guess my question would be how many people are signed up to speak on 207 and are we taking anyone's ability way to speak that is here specifically for that bill. So I'm gonna review the the for and against sheet, but as I recall, I don't know that there's any one person who just signed up only for 207, but let me verify that. We have one person who only signed up for 208. Two people that only signed up for 208. We do have one person who appears to have only signed up for 207. Everyone else signed up for either just 208 or all three bills 0708 and 211. So the one person who signed up to only speak against 207. Appears to be TN Estelle. She worked. I'm being told by the audience that she's gone, she left. So apparent, it appears that there is no one here who is only here for 207. So I think it's fair that we. Just hear that on Wednesday and with that Representative Crawford has a motion that we proceed with 208. Is the committee in favor of that. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The ayes have it. We're gonna continue on. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 208. Well, thank you committee, and I appreciate you guys' willingness to, to sit here and do the work um and hear these bills. I know it's been a long day, so I, I do greatly appreciate it. I'll keep my remarks really brief on, uh, Senate Bill 208. Basically, what this does is it requires a voter ID to sign a petition in Arkansas, we believe in voter ID. You have it for uh casting a vote at the ballot, and I think that this is not an unreasonable ask um for a photo ID to ensure that those who are signing the petition. are valid to sign the petition and with Adam. Open up to questions. Representative Underwood has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, we do have individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill. First we have Veronica McClain. speak against the bill. there Ms. McLean, if you would state your name and any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your remarks. OK, thank you, and I want to thank you all for allowing me. To come back and talk, um, I had to take PTO today. I had to miss my children's parent-teacher conferences today, um, and I'm currently missing dinner, so I really do appreciate y'all letting me stay and give this so I don't have to come back. Um, my name is Veronica McLean. I'm with um Citizens for Arkansas Public Education and Students. I'm a volunteer with that. I'm not paid with any of my canvassing work that I've done. I work as a mental health therapist. I'm a social worker. Um I, I, I want y'all to know that with 208, it's another rule, right? That puts the burden on me. Susie Citizen. To Be able to take all of these rules and regulations as they are written. Translated, I'm a social worker, I'm not an attorney. I was raised by some attorneys, but that does not make an attorney, right? And I'm supposed to be able to translate all of these rules and do everything just right, or I'm committing either a a misdemeanor or a felony. We don't know yet. Um, so I need I really want y'all to hear this because all day and last week we kept hearing these poor women who were just lied to and bless their hearts, they were told that they were signing something to protect women's health when it in plain language says abortion. I have a statement from the woman that got those women's signatures. And so I want, I want a law that says lying about people that are lying. is a fraud, is, is a felony. We could do this on and on and on. Y'all keep saying there's so much fraud, so much lying, so much cheating, but I have yet to see anybody convicted of that. So are y'all lying about the fraud? OK. Another thing. If I'm asked to look at somebody's driver's license, which, to be honest with y'all, I did anyway because I wanted to make sure that signatures weren't thrown out. I, you know, because again, the rules are very vague. Y'all keep the rules vague. Um, and at that point, Then I'm supposed to let them know. So I'm gonna look at their driver's license and I'm gonna say, OK, look, You look to be like you're a voter, OK, but I don't know that from that if they're a legal voter. Then I'm gonna do step A, B, C, and D, and then I'm gonna take my veto referendum. Written from the Los Act. And I'm gonna follow the next new rule, and I'm going to read. The ballot title of the Learns Act veto referendum. So I want y'all to hear that. Based on the law that y'all voted for that I tried to veto. I had 30 days stolen from me by the Attorney General. Because I had to have the language of it just right. And then now I'm gonna check the ID. I'm going to have an affidavit signed. I'm going to let them know if they mess up, it's a crime. We don't know what kind of crime. And then I'm going to read them the ballot title. So do y'all want me to read the ballot title? That was approved by the Attorney General. Here we go. We're gonna be here a long time. work. Representative Ray has made a point of order. Let's hear your point of order. I'm happy to listen to as much testimony as people have to give on the bill, but this testimony is not about Senate Bill 208, she's talking about ballot titles, not the photo ID requirement. This is about the photo ID requirement. It's as part of the package process. Hang on just a second. So Representative Ray has made a point of order. That uh the remarks need to be limited to the specific. subject matter of Senate Bill 208, which relates to. requiring a canvasser to view a photo identification before obtaining a signature. And so it sounds like you're talking about the ballot title of uh uh a previous amendment and unless you can relate. Quickly how that ballot title relates to the requirement as would be proposed by this bill of a canvasser to view photo identification before obtaining a signature unless you can link those up quickly. I'm inclined to agree with Representative Ray, so. You can go ahead. So I'm going to engage in the process that y'all are trying to attack. Including the part about asking for a driver's license to demonstrate how difficult this is for me as a citizen, since y'all are deciding to make it harder. So we'll go through it together so that y'all can really take it in and experience how difficult that is. So This referendum enables the people to vote for or against the Leanns Act. Enacted by the ninety-fourth General Assembly is Act 237 of 2023. This act, a vote for, will approve the act, a vote against will reject the act. The act number one, creates the Arkansas Children's Educational Freedom Account McClain, I'm gonna have to stop you. We've got a point of order, Representative Betty. Let's hear your point of order. She's not speaking to the bill and, and there are other people who're trying to be respectful of everyone's time, not just yours, but there's there are others waiting to speak, reading this is not making your point. It is just prolonging. Everyone having their opportunity to speak. So I would respectfully ask that she would speak to. The bill so everyone can time can be respected. Representative Beatty's point of order is well taken. Ms. McLean, again, I appreciate what you're trying to say that y'all do appreciate it though because you, these are all part of the same thing. And I, I really need y'all to hear this, and I see y'all are like irritated, angry. I don't have any other power. I don't have any other power but these petitions because y'all don't listen to us. We showed up with more people against and y'all don't listen, you still vote however you want to. This is our only power and y'all are trying to take it away. You're trying to take it away by asking me to ask for somebody's ID. Tell them it's a crime, but we don't know what kind of crime. And then you want me to read these things, this is taking away our rights Beatty has one made a point of order, and I, I What your point of order, representative Beatty again, not speaking to the motion. We do respect you. We're allowing you to speak, trying to let everyone else speak. But if we're gonna go down this path and I'm ready to offer a motion to adjourn and go to the house. We can start this thing back up y'all to know that every time that you vote against my rights. I'm gonna keep fighting, keep fighting. This is not, you don't care. You do whatever you want. Representative Beatty, I Appreciate your point of order and um Well taken. It appears that Miss McLean, however, has concluded her remarks. So we'll go to the next against we have Kristen Stewart. Speak against the bill. It appears that Miss Stewart does not appear. Next we have Gail Choate to speak against the bill. so It appears that Doctor Choate is not here Next we have Melissa Foltz to speak against the bill. Good to see you again. Thank you all for listening to me again. Um, in her defense, I do understand her frustration, uh, because without us being able to talk about them together, each one doesn't look that bad. This one doesn't look that bad, 207 didn't look that bad. 211 didn't look that bad, but when you put them all together, they create a terrible nightmare and I think that was the point she was trying to make. Um, but on 2020, wait, sorry, I've got 207 sitting here. On 208. Having to have a photo ID. Typically you spend about 2 minutes talking to someone that wants to sign the petition. Um When you have to start. Adding extra things each time. You have to tell people, you have to have a photo ID. You have to do this, you have to do that, you have to do that. It goes from a couple of minutes. Per person to up to 20 minutes per person. And when you figure that out, it takes 1 year, 19 weeks, 5 days, and 21 hours to follow all of the rules if these rules pass. Asking for an ID doesn't sound like that much, but when you have 50 people standing in line trying to sign your petition. It's 104 degrees outside. You, you're burning up, you're doing the best you can do, you're trying to be as honest as you can be. And then when you start telling people you have to, I, I have to see your ID I have to tell you this, I have to read you that you have to do this, you have to do that. People get frustrated and go, I'm not standing in line for 30 minutes to sign the petition. It's hot and I want to go. Play something I'm sorry, excuse me. Time to milk my goats. People get frustrated. Excuse me. It was my alarm. I'm sorry. I didn't know I was gonna be here that later. I turned my alarm off. Alright, my point is, it's when you're asking them all of these things, whether it's a, a photo ID or the other things that we have discussed. It takes so long and I think that is most of our points that All of these bills. This one and all of them are creating unnecessary undue burdens on both the canvasser and the person wanting to sign the petition. You know, if you're out running in, in, in and out of the grocery store. If I go on the grocery store, I don't carry my purse. I don't carry anything except for My debit card. Because if your purse is sitting in the, in the basket and you turn your back, your lob to not have a purse, so. A lot of people are like that. We don't carry our ID everywhere we go. And if you're out just having a good time or you're, you're walking through a park or you're in the parking lot, you may not have your ID and then we're gonna have to tell that person, I'm sorry, you're not allowed to use your Constitutional right to sign this petition because you don't have your ID. It doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is. And I know you'll have your mind set up. I know you, you, I know you've already decided what y'all are gonna vote on, but I wish you would listen, just asking for this can cost a canvasser multiple signatures. And ultimately all of the rules that have been, been, been done and and attacking us including lowering our time to be able to do this. You're making it impossible. For the people to have a voice. It's all of them combined, not one single 1 may not be a big deal, but all of them combined. Actually makes it virtually impossible. To get the required signatures unless you're rich and you have about 5 or $10 million. Grassroots don't have that. In 2012, we got the first marijuana medical marijuana initiative on the ballot for $93,000. Last year when we tried to get the, the medical marijuana expansion on there. It cost $1.8 million. How many grassroots groups, do you think has $1.8 million. I know that y'all have spent since 2013 trying to make it a better law, and I agree there are bad characters. In 2012, we turned into the Secretary of State, people that had signed 36 times. We sit out there and watched them with Sheffield Nelson's bill signing each other's petition. We begged them to do something about it, you know what was done? about it Nothing. None of these bills are gonna make a difference because they're never They don't have to uphold to them. All it does is takes the petition, the petition out of the people's hands and out of the canvasser's hands and makes it virtually impossible to get a ballot on a a petition on the ballot. I'm asking y'all to please Look at all of them together and see what damage you're doing to the people's voice. This is the only voice that the people have is the petitioning process. Y'all have, y'all have everything. Y'all don't have to do all of the things that you're asking us to do. What if you were going door to door campaigning. Or you're out on the parking lot somewhere in your district campaigning. If you had to stop and ask every single person. Are you registered? Well, we ask, are you a registered voter? But I need to see your ID to make sure who I'm talking to. Or I need to tell you every bill I've ever voted on, filed or whatever. Or what if you had to get 6% of your constituents to sign a petition before you could ever file a bill. Y'all hold us in an, in an unattainable. Standard, yet you don't hold yourselves to that. Y'all are supposed to work for us, yet y'all make sure that we never have a voice to be heard. And you have no idea how hard that is. I have fought for 14 years. 14 years. I'm a 70 year old grandmother that's tired of fighting. And every single session, I have to come up here and fight for my right to have a voice and you completely ignore it. 36, was it, what did I say 36 bills, y'all have 31 bills. Y'all have filed from 2013 to 2024. How much difference is it made to make it more honest. More transparent or better? None. Every session I have begged if y'all want to fix it, sit down with us and work with us. I want the bad actors out. Because they are out there. But the rules and regulations and laws that y'all are passing, do nothing to fix the problem. We need to fix the problem, not make the people's voice go away and until y'all sit down with us and say, one of you sit down and say, OK, let's fix this. And if you would do that, everyone in this room would support it. But y'all have passed law after law after law after law and it's, it's not safer. It's not more efficient. You don't get rid of the bad actors. All you do is stifle the people's voice and it's gotta stop. You have to say enough is enough. You've stepped on our rights far too many times. you continue to do it and, and everything we say falls on deaf ears because you don't care about our voice. You only care about yours. If you really want to fix it and you really want to get rid of the bad actors and you really wanna make it transparent and you wanna make it more honest. Sit down with us and help us write a new petitioning bill that we can put on the ballot and we can get past and we can make it honest. And we can make the people's voice heard again. All y'all have done is heard our voice. You hadn't done a single thing to fix it and none of these bills are gonna fix it either. I'm sorry I've ranted, but I'm just like y'all. I'm tired but I'm a whole lot older than most of you are. I'm tired and I'm tired of fighting and I'm tired of seeing our voice taken, piece by piece by piece. Y'all, y'all put amendments. On the ballot and the people told you absolutely no, do not do it. And what did you do? You came back the next session and you passed everything you could pass. way, even And after the people said no, you're supposed to work for us. You're supposed to listen to our voice. I'm resentative Hawke has a point of order. I think we've allowed for the ranting to go on long enough. This has nothing to do with the bill. Yes, it does have it. To do with the bill we are talking about photo IDs. We are talking about photo IDs on a bill and we, we have not talked about that in the last 10. So there's, there's a point of order. Representative Hawks made a point of order. I would just again, Ms. Foltz, just remind you, we're on Senate Bill 208208. I understand that and I have begged you to not vote for it and I certainly understand. I certainly understand your advocacy. I'm not in your, I'm welcoming you to say anything you want to say, you can stay down there at the end of the table as, as long as you'd like as far as I'm concerned. There was a point of order. He's the Representative Hawke's a committee member, and I've got to recognize him, OK, so I'm not trying to interrupt you. I hope you understand. And uh and then Representative Clowney. I'm not exactly sure procedurally, I just would like to raise a point if I could, um, I. I genuinely believe that. Those of us at this table as well as those of us in the audience have hit a point today where this may no longer be productive. I want us to be in a place where we can discuss policy, um, as seriously as it deserves and I think emotions on this issue on all sides, legislators and members of the public are really high, um, not because people are tired, but because this work really, really, really matters and so I think I would, I would just say I don't want. Anybody to be quieted who came up to speak tonight, but I would just like to maybe have us reconsider a journing for the night and coming back on Wednesday, um, and if If the, if, if y'all are here cannot do that, then that's fine, but I will say I anticipate this getting worse this evening. OK. All right, and I apologize for ranting. It's just So frustrating. You have nothing to apologize for. Let me be clear. So, OK. Representative Clowney has made a point, although she did not make a motion and if she would like to make a motion, I, I would entertain a motion. She does not want to make a motion. Representative Ray. Well, if, if there's not a motion, then I don't, I don't know that my comments are necessary. Other than that, we did take a vote to take up 208, and we're in the process of doing that, I think. If, if we would just, if the instructions were clear to everyone that we Testify on the bill, stick to the bill, everyone be civil. I think we can power through this without too much trouble. All right, Representative Clowney. I just like to add that I think that members need to appreciate that we are the ones with the power at this table that people are speaking here have one opportunity to speak, and this is it, and I would just ask my colleagues that we extend a little bit of grace and understanding if we are as a body deciding that we want to see this through to the end, we have to see it through in a way that is respectful of everybody who has something to say, even if maybe we're tired. All right. So there's, there are no motions pending Representative Hawke had a point of order. I think Representative Hawke's point of order was well taken, and so I've just say that we're considering Senate Bill 208. I also think that Representative Clowney's points are well taken. This is a process where emotions are high. And My feeling is much like Representative Clowney's that. In terms of Individuals signed up to speak for or against the bill. I'm gonna allow you some latitude there because I understand sometimes you're speaking in generalities, but it does affect, uh, and, and does pertains to the bill generally, but if there are specific objections to the bill. Please let those be known and try to please make those specific objections to this particular bill, the heart of your comments. I understand that there are general objections. There are very broad objections. And certainly you can voice those, but try to keep the heart of your comments about this particular bill that the committee is considering. And to Representative Ray's point, we have already voted on a motion to stay here, to hear Senate Bill 208. And the reason we did that, and I want to make this very clear is because We have so many people who are signed up to speak for and against the bill, and we want to make sure that you all are being heard, this committee cares very much. That's why. We're here at 7 o'clock to make sure that and we'll stay here as late as we have to. I will, so to make sure that everybody's voice is heard and that is very important and so, uh, Ms. Foltz, if you have any additional comments, you're recognized to make those 208. How? Are they planning on enforcing this. They don't enforce anything else. So if I'm out canvassing and someone doesn't have a photo ID and what do we consider photo photo ID. Can I use my medical marijuana card for it. It has my photo on it and it has my information on it. And also If somebody Doesn't get that photo ID one time again. Every one of their signatures can be thrown out because of one mistake. Our one omission. And that's not fair. You're gonna get. 1000, 2000, 5000 signatures thrown out, which is the entire goal of all of these bills. This one included. That How many signatures can we throw out on something that we don't agree with. We don't care what the people say, but we wanna make sure that we have the ability to throw anything out that we don't agree with. This will be part of that to help. Not everybody carries their ID. I don't always carry my ID. I don't drive. My husband drives me everywhere because I tend to have migraines, so I don't drive. So if I don't, why would I have my driver's license. I don't need it. I'm not driving. So if I walk up and somebody's got a petition and I say, oh, I've been looking for somebody to sign so I could sign that. I've been looking for weeks. Well, I need to see your ID. I don't have my ID. I'm going into the grocery store. I have my debit card, it has my name on it. Does that count? Will it And if I don't have that photo ID I don't get to sign a petition, which is my constitutional right. This bill We'll pretend like I didn't say the rest of them. We all cumulatively stop my ability to sign the petition. It will stop my ability to canvas to pass a bill onto the onto the The ballot. That's all I have to say. I'm begging you, please vote against this one and all the rest of them. I know you've made up your mind and I know y'all really don't care what I have to say, but I said it anyway. All right, is there any questions, Mrs. Foltz Representative Carr, yes, uh, first of all, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to testify today. Um, I had a question about the ID. You mentioned that you go to the grocery store with your debit card. A lot of purchases such as alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets require a photo ID. So wouldn't it be a good idea for you to have your photo ID in case the cashier asks you for your ID. I get a lottery ticket every 2 weeks. I've never shown a photo ID. I don't buy alcohol. I don't buy tobacco. So why would I have to have an ID? So there's a lot of people that don't do those things just in case a cashier had asks you for your ID, wouldn't it be a good idea to have it. Now thank you. That's just something else I gotta keep up with. Thank you, Mrs. Foltz. Next we have. signed up to speak against the bill. Carol Egan I really thank you all for your patience. For letting all of us speak. It's very, I know you're tired, we're all tired and um It'd be nice to be able to wrap this up, right? Um, so I appreciate it. Um, I, and I will be brief. I think when I heard uh Senator Hammer introduced the bills in the Senate, um. He He and I think it's 100% sincere wants to reduce fraud around this process. Um, and what he referenced then, um, was outside money coming in. And I, I'm gonna get it to to to to whatever number we're on eventually, not even, it won't even take me a minute. Um, he, uh, all this outside money coming in. What's happening? Again, the law of unintended circumstances with all these regulations, these and ones um previously is The end result is grassroots initiatives are unable to bring Legislation or initiatives to the ballot. And only outside deep pockets are able to do it because they're the ones who have the financial ROI. incentive to do it and we saw that with this last election cycle with the casino bill. That's the only one that made the, the cut an outside casino from Oklahoma, funded a a ballot initiative and was the only one that made the cut. Now we're adding For our grassroots people as well as the paid canvassers and the paid outside interests. We're adding all these additional things including looking at driver's license, and I just really Question And I think a lot of people here question is, is it truly your intent to try to keep outside interests, um, out of this process, or us. And that's all I have to say. All right, thank you, Ms. Egan, the questions by the committee, saying no, thank you for your remarks. Next, we have Doctor William Goolsby. Well, as I said before, I'm William Goolsby. I'm a citizen of the state of Arkansas, speaking on my behalf. I, uh, failed to say before, but I'm also retired lieutenant Colonel from the Air Force. And the retired dean of the College of Business at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and I'm also uh. small business owner, so I've been around the circle a few times and uh I'd just like to say that so far as this bill to a 208 is concerned, um, I think Ms. Foltz. put it pretty accurately, the overall thing is to make it extremely difficult for us or impossible for us to get something on the ballot unless we have a millions of dollars to do it. It's uh getting more and more costly. And um I'm this seems to me a regression, as I said before, in terms of our social progress as a nation, as a democracy. We're going backwards. And it's not unusual. You take 2 steps forward and one step backwards, I guess, but I think we've made Maybe 50 steps forward and this is just one or two steps back, so uh we'll get past this. And the purpose of the overall purpose of this is, of course, to deny people the right to put Initiatives on the ballot unless you have a lot of money. And uh this. 208 bill is just another layer on that to make it more difficult. Obviously, I mean, I've helped click. Signatures added to Rivers Park and so on, and people out there, you know, going jogging and so on, don't have their IDs with them and that, you know. So they wouldn't be able to do it. So it just makes it more difficult and more expensive. Everything all the time involved and Explaining, trying to explain the law even though you guys can't explain the law. You all tried, couldn't, couldn't reach consensus on it, but um, you know, I think it's illegal for should be illegal for Canvassers to be explaining the law to people, but um, anyhow. Um, this is one more layer. Do you have any questions? I'll be happy to answer. Thank you for uh staying so late and listening to us speak. Dr. Goolsby, it does look like we have a couple of questions, Representative Ray. OK, Doctor, I appreciate your testimony and thank you for your service in the Air Force. Um, you mentioned that you had been, you've been a canvasser on occasion. So, um, I, I guess my, I'll start with just asking, do you, do you think that as a canvasser that you have a duty to only collect signatures from Valid signers from from registered Arkansas voters. Absolutely, we we had them check, uh. we would go to the phones and make certain that their name was on the voter rolls in the county, which we were in and so on, so we, we were very careful about that. OK, well we certainly didn't want to have someone sign who wasn't uh uh proper signer because we wanted to protect the valid signatures, and I think that that would be what You all should be doing really is focusing on how to protect the valid signatures instead of how to throw out signatures. I'm glad to hear that that is important to you, so I guess my, my follow up to that is if you do feel an obligation to make sure that the people signing a registered voters. What is the harm in just quickly verifying that it only takes a couple of seconds for someone to show their ID so that you can make sure that the name just matches what they're putting on the uh on the, on the petition form and that they're from Arkansas. Yeah, well, we went beyond that. We looked at looked up their name on the voter roll in the county that they said to make sure that they were registered in the county. They said they were in. Sometimes they were mistaken. They would think they were registered in Pulaski County when actually they were registered in uh. Faulkner County or whatever, you know, so you you find occasional errors like that and you just tell them, you know, you, you can't, you can't sign on this petition because uh This is for Pulaski County. OK, I'm glad you take a lot of caution in that area. I, I just think that Having someone show the ID would It's no big deal except, except, uh, as Ms. Foltz was saying, you know, you run it, you can't be collecting signatures out of Two Rivers Park, efficiently if that's if that's a requirement, and, and it's just another small layer making it more difficult to get signatures, that's all. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you. I, I, I, I don't really know completely if this is a question for you or maybe something that when Representative Underwood gets back up, he can address and answer for me. I'm just trying to, to understand because it, it, the question of what ID can be presented, so I went back to look at 71101, which is where I think the definition of what documents can be, can be used here and, and I am reading in here you were talking about, you know, maybe you don't have your ID on you. It says a document or identification card may be presented in a digital format on an electronic device if the document or identification card complies with the requirements of the subdivision, the digital format has been approved or issued by the United States, the state of Arkansas, and an accredited post-secondary educational institution in the state of Arkansas and just wondering if, if that can be clarified or if that is intended that maybe um because maybe you left your ID at home, but most people don't leave their cell phone at home. I, I, I don't know, I'm just, I'm trying to understand the full scope. Yeah, if they left their cell phone at home, it didn't matter because we would use our own cell phones, you know, give us your name and uh we put it in and check and uh the county roll that you say you're from, and we were doing that. I, I don't think uh that would comply with 208, however. Uh, I'm not a, as I said, I'm not an attorney, so I wouldn't know that. Answer to that. Representative Beck you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, I certainly appreciate your service and I appreciate you sound like you're very contented trying to get good voters, but I excuse me good petitioners, I guess you say. Truly, there's been a lot of things said about this committee, and I, I just want to say it right back. I can tell you that the members of this community want to make sure that Arkansans know what they're signing and that their voices are heard. That's exactly what we want in this group and, and it's this, I, I do take offense to people saying that we're just trying to just do what we want and not what anyone else wants, but I would, I, so I wanna ask you a question though. If you think about this, we're trying to say how do we make sure the person that signs that is a good Arkansas voter, and they understand what they're signing, and that's everything that we're looking for and, and, and, and I think that's what the sum of all this stuff does. It's not, it's been presented as a sum of all this is just to create as many rail blocks as you possibly can to prevent somebody, but it's really not. You yourself said that you and I appreciate the effort. I really do. I, I sincerely appreciate. You look up to make sure that that voter is a good voter registered in that county. Wouldn't it be much easier to be able to look at their ID and say this is the person who signed this and this is right. So we're really trying to make it easier in, in a lot of aspects to do the job right and I, and I, I honestly think and probably most of the people here try to do the best that they possibly can to to make these right, but I said that's the intention of this and, and I, I would say that it's much easier. We're trying to find easy ways to make sure that our Kansans know what they're signing. And that they are in fact who they are. So that it, it doesn't make the voice of the Arkansans, not hurt over other people, so wouldn't you agree with that? Well, I, I would just say that, uh, you know, uh, If they did give you their ID and had an address on it and so on that, that alone would not be enough to prove that they were registered voters in the county that they say they're registered in because they could be mistaken and that's why we were doing this double check this other check. Uh, to be sure that the safeguard the other 9 signatures on that sheet that they're signing because if they signed it and they weren't registered in that county, then the other 9 valid signatures would be thrown out, so we're trying to protect other people as well. And I think that there should be more Attention to trying to protect valid votes. Or valid signatures, I should say. That's not a vote, yeah. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this question is sort of directed at uh Representative Mayberry's question. I, I believe that the reference to the digital licenses, a digital driver's license, which is a specialized form that we pass as an option last session. I don't think that's an effect yet. I don't think those are available if they are, it would be new because I think that section was only affected February 1st of this year, so, um, I, I don't, I don't think those are in widespread use quite yet. But Potentially in the future we could all have digital driver's licenses, yes, instead of cards. Sponsors may be able to address that in their closing. Any other questions for Doctor Goolsby seeing now Doctor Goolsby, thank you for being here. Thank you. Next we have Rebecca Zimmerman. Mrs. Emerman, you just identify yourself and any organization you're here representing, and you're recognized. Um, thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Rebecca Zimmer with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and we urge you to also please vote against SB 208, um. Again, we do believe that this bill adds red tape to the process, um, do in part because the enforceability of this issue, um, there's already uh laws at least a misdemeanor, maybe class D felony to um address when people uh commit fraud during the ballot measure process, uh, including if they act fraudulently about who they are, um, but as Miss Bellamy with, um, the Secretary of State's office already said, Um, she's referred several instances of fraud, uh, that have not been prosecuted yet and if there are laws that are not being enforced currently, they need to be addressed administratively to make sure that the laws are being enforced and laws that aren't are are simply just red tape, otherwise, um, so we ask you to please vote against this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Zimmern Zimmerman. Any questions by the committee, saying no, thank you for your remarks. Next we have. Jennifer Standefer. Speak against the bill. Thank you. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeaner for Arkansas Appleseed and in my personal capacity as well. So this is the bill that was worth driving down from Bentonville for, and the reason is because there are legal problems with this that are perfectly fixable, and I just wanted to make sure you're aware of this. If y'all will think back and recall when we went through the voter identification um effort to get that, to get that adopted in Arkansas. There were two primary, um, constitutional problems that we dealt with and it took a number of drafts and a number of times back. and forth with the courts on this too. The first was a poll tax issue. And if you recall because you had to pay for a driver's license at the time, it was considered a poll tax in order to get a voter ID, but that's not a problem anymore because y'all fix that and you gave and within the voter ID. I don't think that that is a problem for purposes of this bill because this bill fights back to the voter ID provisions when it comes to an identification, so I think the identification qualifications itself are sufficient under the. That being said, the other issue that we had with voter ID is that when you deny the right to vote, you have to provide due process, and this is coming out of federal and state law. The due process is notice to the voter and an opportunity to come in and verify it's their vote. And we were allowing, that's why we have the cure period. It's not because we wanted to do it, it's because we had to to pass constitutional due process muster. In this particular instance, the right to sign the petition is afforded. the same protection as the right to vote and so it needs notice to the voter in an opportunity to verify that that's their signature before you either refuse to allow them sign or refuse to count their signature, um, it is not sufficient that the sponsor can cure deficiencies for 30 days because that's the sponsor doesn't have those rights. It's not the sponsor's right to vote. It's not the sponsor's right to sign. It is. The registered voters right and in order to preserve the registered voters' right, all this needs is a cure process, and I would ask just a very simple cure cure process be added where the Secretary of State notifies the voter who's not going to be counted and allows them to come in and verify that it's their signature, and if they do, then it'll be counted. If they don't, you have fantastic evidence to put in front of the prosecuting attorney. That's all I have. Thank you, Ms. Dana, are there any questions by the committee? All right, um, Seeing none. Next we have. Susan Carolyn. Not here. Tyler Draper. Fire. Not here. Kwami Abdul Bay. You're recognized. I'm Kwame Abdul Bay. I'm the political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and I've also worked as a uh. Campaign manager for several different ballot measures. There's a couple of things that uh are concerning about uh this particular bill, uh, SB 208 uh that uh I definitely need clarity on uh the conversation that has been going on, uh, is that, uh, somehow a photo ID is going to magically uh let uh the canvasser know that the uh potential signer is a registered voter. Uh, that's not even what the law says, uh, if you look at lines 27 and 28 on the first page it says it's to verify their identity. It has nothing to do with voter registration. Why are we verifying someone's identity. It doesn't even say that you're looking at their license to verify their signature. You're verifying their identity. Canvassers should not be. De facto police identifying some uh verifying somebody's identity just so that they can use their constitutional right to put their name on the ballot. If you read the Constitution, the Constitution says that all you need to sign is to be a registered voter. What we do, uh, is, uh, as was stated before, is we verify that people are registered voters by going to the Secretary of State's voter database online. If you look at the laws pertaining to. Registering to vote, you do not have to show a photo ID to register to vote. You registered to vote just by filling out the paperwork and turning it in and it's up to the county clerk to then verify your identity. So When you Hold on. Let me find my notes right quick. So when you uh tell somebody that you they have to present a photo ID in order to sign a petition. Then what that does is that's that's creating a totally unnecessary step, uh, that is not in line with what the Constitution actually says. The Constitution says that you have to be a registered voter. So as long as we go to the Secretary of State's database. Where it has, who is a registered voter and who is not a registered voter, and we can type in the person's information to verify that they are registered voter, then we're following the constitution and there's no need for an additional step, uh, also. When you look at. If you look at the 2nd page lines 2 and 3. It says, as used in this section, photo identification means verification of photo identification. As defined, uh, under 7-1-77-1-101 uh subsection 40. And then when you go read that now look at that, look at, look at that again and I want you to see what's in parentheses. What's in quotation mark, excuse me, verification of photo identification and then it tells you what section of law to go to when you go to that section of law, those words are not even in that section of law. The words that are in that section of law are Verification of voter registration. So this is uh SB 208 is telling us that it's verification of photo identification, but when you go to the actual law, it says verification of voter registration and then it explains that voter registration is a function of the Secretary of State's office and if we cannot use this particular law which says verification of voter registration. Go to the database, type in their name, type in their birth date and you have verification of voter registration. So this law is similar to the law that was just pulled down, it's a badly drafted. I'm a legislative drafter and both of these bills. I'm not gonna say that, but they're they're drafted very poorly. Another part, another problem with this. Is that if it wants to add a section 10. Let me Oh Pubs That's 207. I'm sorry. But basically what I just wanted to say is that according to the Constitution, we're all you're only required to be a registered voter. When you sign a petition, you are not required to verify your identity. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions over the last 5 decades that no American is required to carry photo ID. No one is required to carry photo photo ID. My mother. She doesn't carry photo ID because she doesn't drive. But she likes direct democracy and she likes signing petitions and what I do with my mother is I type in her name and her birthday to make sure she's a registered voter. Then I get her signature. So that's what we need to be doing if we really want to do what we say we're doing is election integrity and preventing uh. fraud and petition fraud is a felony petition falsification is a misdemeanor. That's what the law says, but if we really wanna do that, then let's do that without these extra steps in this extra, extra pieces of paper which are meaningless to what it is you say you're trying to do. With that, I ask you to vote against SB. What are we 208 SB 208 and I'll take questions. Representative makes, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Thank you for, uh, for being here late tonight with us. Uh, I, I just wanna make sure I'm, I'm understanding your, your testimony. Uh, it sounds like you, you're advocating for us that instead of doing voter ID, we should be changing it so that the requirement is, is that we actually look up the voter and the voter database before allowing them to sign. Is that a correct, uh, that's what, that's what we currently do, everybody here, uh, we don't just willy nilly. let people sign Uh, the, the people that work in the campaigns that are working in there specifically trained to make sure that everyone is a registered voter by using the Secretary of State's voter database, uh, and you could talk to, uh, the people here from the Secretary of State's office. I for you them on a regular basis asking for updates to the voter file so we know who is a voter and who is not a voter. Arkansas currently has the lowest voter registration. in the entire United States at just like 54%. So, we have to make sure that we're only targeting those 54% and if they're not a registered voter, that's our opportunity to register them to vote then once we register them to vote, then we can go back to them and get their signature. But that whole process does not require photo ID at all. Alright, thank you, thank you, sir. Thank you. Seeing no other questions with the committee, uh. Thank you for your testimony. All right, thank you. And next up we have chance, Bradford. Sorry, long day, phone died. You all recognize this you all recognize the speaker on Senate Bill 208. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. I am Chance Bradford. I am not affiliated with any specific group, but I am a senior at Little Rock Mills High School and I am a Former senator of the Boise State Initiative. Before I get into Bill 208 specifically, I just want to say first things first. I want to say my gratitude for the representatives in front of me that fought for the opportunity for us to stay here, so the people's voices could be heard. And I also wanna say that I love you very much, uh Miss Melissa Folk. It's your passion that inspires people like me to come up here and talk at this age, but Uh, we're gonna pretend that we're not talking about purple and I'm only gonna focus on blue, Bill 208 here. I see a very big line that crosses into damaging the youths vantage point when it comes to civil engagement. Uh, first things first. When I look at the legislation in front of me, I see a power grab. I mean, I feel that the current system that we have in place currently is more than functional. And more than difficult enough for the petitioners to get the job that they do, then I feel like a lot of people in the room would agree with me on the outskirts of this table, but Let's say just for a second that you actually are trying to make this process more safe and not just trying to make it a little bit more difficult. I really do feel that this bill in specific makes it harder for people in my age range to be engaged. I'm 18 years old and I'm in this room, so obviously you know that I care about the current state of politics, but I don't have my driver's license. I don't own one and I, well I do have my permit, I'll tell you I do not carry that fat piece of paper with me everywhere that I go. If I were to see somebody with a petition that I truly believe would make a difference in Arkansas. I would not be able to sign that petition with this law being passed because I don't have a driver's license or a state ID. on me, and this isn't just a case for me, but this is a case for many people in my age range, 100s if not thousands of people, of young people that don't have this certification on the 24/7 and not just them, but also just. Individuals that don't have the resources readily available to them to be able to go get this identification and as Kwame said before me, it's weird that you don't even have to have your ID to register to vote, but to even have the conversation about a policy you're going to need to present state ID to what is going to be to you a stranger. Not only with me engaging from my side, but let's say I were to want to petition something, I'm going to be very frank with you. As a young black man, I would not feel comfortable going up to a majority of people in this room and asking them to pull out their ID for me, and I doubt a lot of people would feel comfortable with me going up to them and asking for them to show government certification to me, uh, whether it be you're too young or some other reasons that I'll try to leave out of the conversation. For now. Um There, sorry, I'm just trying to get my thoughts together here. There's a lot of writing on this paper. As you can see. When you make the process longer or harder, a lot of people get frustrated and what do they do when they're frustrated? They leave the vicinity. This going into effect would make it significantly harder along with the other 10 steps that we're not talking about at this moment, wouldn't make it nigh impossible for the people to be able to introduce legislation that they feel truly helps them in their community because while it's no disrespect to anybody else sitting at this. table The everyday person. Is more represented by the people on the outskirts of this room than the people in the center of this room and they have a deep understanding of what their communities need. So we need the people's voices in order to have a functional state. Going back to my youth perspective. a lot of bills. I feel go up against the power of the youth's voice, and I feel like this is going to contribute to that. I mean, as a first time voter, I had to fight with my friends to get them to register to vote and even so many of them just did not feel that the current democracy that we had supported them enough to where their vote would matter. Laws simply put in my opinion, are not made for my generations. There are bills on the ballot right now that are already outdated. And if we're trying to foster, I'm hoping that we're trying to foster a state that is going to be better for the generation after our time passes, then this bill is a direct spit in the face of that ideology. Why does it seem to be getting harder and harder to organize. Why do I feel that I'm going to struggle 10 times more than I truly should to be able to organize my generation around me. I really do feel, you know, except for my beautiful constituent behind me, Ron Coa that I'm the only person that is this young in this room and that is a statement within itself. The youth need reinforcement and the idea that this democracy is going to support them. They need more access, and this is taking away the very access that we need. That's it, uh, I'll take questions. All right, are there any questions by the committee? Mr. Bradford Thank you for being here. Appreciate your remarks. Representative Clowney. All right. Next we have. Ron Kuda. Mrcua. You're recognized? Hello, Mr. Chair. My name is uh Ron Kuda. I'm a senior at Little Rock Central, um, and as I've stated before, I am a former canvasser. Um, I understand that we're all tired tonight, so I will try to keep my statements brief. Um, I'm aware of the impression that I may give. I don't want to seem like a firebrand canvasser who um like frivolously collect signatures without caring whether or not people have signed things multiple times or whether or not their voter ID has been confirmed or not, so I'm going to go through a few. Um, I'm going to give a personal um test testimony to what the process of canvassing looks like. Um, back last summer, we saw some of the highest heats that we ever have in Arkansas. Um, there were heats some days that were over 102 degrees, 103 degrees, um, and, and a lot of these temperatures, I was out with a lot of my fellow canvassers in the most rural parts of the state, the parts of the state that have low populations, the parts of the state that are hard to get to the parts of the state that quite frankly, a lot of people in here probably couldn't name or remember. Um, there was one instance in particular that I remember order, please. OK. All right, Mr. Kuta, I apologize, but there is a point of order. Representative Crawford, yes. As much as we would love hearing about the hot days in August. We're all tired and want to go home. Well, we are talking about legislation on just a second so you keep it to I'm so tired I can't even think, but can you keep it to the bill, so there's probably so many more people after you. So this is, this is on one second. OK. So the point of order is to essentially be more concise with your remarks to speak directly to the bill. Mr. I think that's what you're trying to do, um, you, you are speaking you kind of in more broad terms. But uh, The point is well taken, but certainly feel free to make your points, but we are here on Senate Bill 208, so you're recognized. I am trying to speak as as quickly as possible and, and the reason I am um illustrating some of this backstory behind the last election cycle is so that I can paint a better picture for the people in this room about how this legislation is going to change the current process that is involved with collecting signatures. I think that that is a deeply important thing to address considering the fact that a lot of the people at this table have not canvassed in their lifetime. So Um, I will continue. In DeWitt, Arkansas, there's a grocery store, it's like the only grocery store in DeWitt, and it's called Piggly Wiggly, and a lot of my fellow advocates and and uh canvassers were out there and the grueling heat collecting signatures. One of my fellow canvassers actually had a heat stroke during the collection of these signatures and um this was because the process was taking too long to collect one person's signature because we had to uh lar ify if they were a voter or not. And lo and behold, they were a voter and their signature was counted, um, and we collected it for the 6 different major petitions, I digress. My point being, um, and I think it's the point that's been echoed by a lot of other former um People that have testified and it is that if we are to um always have to ask people for their ID, the time that it takes to verify each person's um photo ID is going to take more time in the grueling heat or the cold or wherever, whatever circumstance we find ourselves in, and it's going to end up um affecting the amount of signatures that we get, and it's going to end up um becoming an undue burden, um, and that is what it is, it is a burden to constantly have to verify people. um, visual identification and photo identification. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to identify whether or not the signatures presented on the petitions are valid or not. Um, and I feel like a lot of that responsibility is being pushed onto the canvassers on, uh, under the guise of fraudulence. I think that it is absolutely absurd that we've sat here today and just entertained these claims of fraudulence, despite the fact that there have been no major lawsuits, no lawsuits at all. Revolving around the fraudulence of canvassers. There have been no convictions, no felony litigations, nothing. And still we have Senator Hawke grilling um Doctor Choat about whether or not there are good actors in this process. We don't know if there's good or bad actors because there's been no lawsuits. There's been no prosecution. So I think that it's absurd to ask us to admit that there are bad actors. Sure, of course, there's bad actors everywhere, but I think that the majority of the bad actors in this situation have to are within the state apparatus. We've seen um our petitions get shot down time and time again by the Supreme Court or the Attorney General or the Secretary of State, and it's clear that there is a concerted effort to move against what the people want. I ask. I believe I asked this the last time I was here. And of course I'm, I'm not really allowed to ask questions of the committee members, um, in dialogue like that, so I'll, I'll ask it more rhetorically. Do you remember which petitions were actually put on the ballot last time because there was only one petition on the ballot last time that was counted, and it was in favor of the casinos. It was the only ballot initiative that every single canvasser that collected for it was paid, and yet we all stand here and we, we sit here and we talk about how we don't want to have these out of state petitioners, these out of state canvassers that are being paid. We talk about how we don't want them affecting our political process when in reality the grassroots organizers were destroyed last election cycle by these exact same kinds of policies. The only petition that got on the ballot was for casinos, and mind you, a casino ballot initiative that had nothing to do with the illegalization or legalization of casinos. It was literally just um a disagreement between two casino companies, like, I think it's absurd that we are pretending that any of this is for the people of Arkansas. It is enshrined in our Constitution to um be able to put our own legislation on the ballot, and I feel as though that privilege is and that right is not being considered and it will not be taken into the next election cycle for these exact same reasons. I'm gonna open um my time for questioning. If there is any. All right, Mr. Kuta, thank you for those remarks. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks. Next we have Lee Wood Thomas. Gone. Not here. All right. Robert Miller Robert Miller Robert Miller. Julia Taylor. So I got the wrong list. Um, Spa. We've been OK Randy Sams. Joey McCutchen. Mr. McCutcheon. All right. All right guys, I appreciate you. Thank you and I appreciate the committee also. My name's Joey McCutchen. I'm from Fort Smith and I'm fired up. You know why? Because this is about freedom and uh the only beneficiary of all of this cumulative bill after bill and Whatever bills are going to be filed tomorrow to destroy our initiative process. This is about freedom and um and you know. Big fat corporate interests are what's driving this process to destroy our initiative process that we were blessed with in 1910 and that's a, that's an important statement. And we won't have a 2004 marriage amendment. We won't ever see that again. We won't ever see the people be able to bring an initiative because we're gonna nickel and dime. We are going to nickel and dime so hard we're going to gut what we're trying to prevent here. We're going to gut. We're going to create more laws and more laws and more laws and we don't need more laws. We've got protections. This is a solution looking for a problem. And these young guys behind me nailed it. And you know who I'm here for tonight. My grandkids. Because my grandkids are gonna be on the other side of this, right? I'm a Republican and I believe in conservatism. I believe in Republican principles and one day as this youngster, I think he said the inside versus the outside. One day we're going to wake up and there's gonna be Republicans sitting out here at 8 o'clock at night and there's gonna be Democrats in here and we Republicans are going to say, boy, I wish we had that initiative process because there's more of it coming. We know what this is about. We know committee what this is about. Let's not kid ourselves. We're going to see bill after bill after bill, law after law after law this session, resolution after resolution, and we're gonna gut this process. And I think it's worth fighting for. And you know, the practicality of this thing. People walking in the park. People going to the fairs, people going to the rodeos. They're not gonna wanna put their ID out. And I can tell you the bub is where I held petitions. The bubba where I held petitions. They're not going to want Joey McCutchen to read all the, all the innate worded in a word, an 8 minute petition to them that's coming next to you. They they're not gonna wait around for that, and that's gonna hurt the people. And the people is what this is about. If we believe in the people, then let's believe in the people or let's change our state seal. Let's change our motto that the people rule. Let's just change it now and let's say the elitist rule. Let's just say that we do not want a citizen legislature. We want a the legislature here to make all our laws, um, but I think we're blessed with what we have in Arkansas and uh and I know that the members of this committee believe in freedom and um I hope you'll slow this train down. And uh because this is in my estimation, 1 of 2, jewels of liberty and one of them is Freedom of Information Act. And the other one is this initiative process, and I think they, I think they separate Arkansas from other states, and I'm, I'm, I'm really uh happy about them and um one final comment, uh, I'd like to thank Representative Gazaway, uh, for giving the people staying here tonight and, and not, not limiting our time. I, I really appreciate that so much. And I, and I appreciate the committee members for also um uh doing that, so. That that's it. All right, well, as, as I remarked earlier, no. Uh, clapping, this isn't a ball game or a concert. But I do appreciate it. Thank you very much. um. Thank you, thank you, Mr. McCutcheon. Are there any questions by the committee? All right, seeing and thank you for those remarks. Who do we have next? Let's see. Stacy Diggs. Hello, um, I'm Stacy Diggs from Piggott, Arkansas, um, thought about going home, but then I was like, you know what, I'm already here, so you guys get to hear me one last time. Um, so as I was saying before, as a citizen, as somebody that tries to be proactive and things that are going on in my state and in my country, I do my best to stay informed. I do my best to make The, the choices that I make matter and these And the, the voter powered initiatives are a keystone to us being able to have that voice, and I believe it was Miss Foltz that said earlier today that between 2013 and 2024, 68 um citizen ballot initiatives were filed, only 7 made it to the ballot. So from 2013 to 2024, only 7 of those actually made it for people to vote on, and I don't know how that ended up going on those votes, but We have a 10% ratio over the course of 10 years that That people get to actually express what they would like to see on the ballot, and that's unfortunate. I think we should have higher numbers than that. And I think if we were being very sincere about caring about what people think, that we would be partnering with these people that are on the front lines doing the hard work and finding out ways to make it better. Um, I also wanted to bring up that Miss Leslie, um, who, uh, spoke earlier and was talking about, um, you know, she oversees the signature accounts. She made the statement that most of the things that are, are being deemed as fraud, we're not actually from bad actors, but most of the mistakes found were invalid, uh, signatures, duplicate signatures, transcriptions not notarized. Several things that Getting lumped up into this. There are better ways for us to figure out this process that are going to be much less impactful on people's ability to have citizen-led democracy. So if like we're really sincere about wanting that, let's vote like that, and I know most of you already know how you're voting, and I hung around just to have this last little expression to you guys for what, for what it matters. Um, But that's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Diggs. It matters a lot and we appreciate you being here and appreciate those remarks. Next we have Jacob Flaherty. Out here. Yeah. Tobias peoples. Or if you just state your name and any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Yes, my name's Tobias, and I don't have an organization. You're recognized, sir. Thank you. um, thank you for letting me speak, um. I find it kind of doubtful that I'll be heard, but I will say what I have to say anyway, um, I'm gonna start off just talking solely about 208, um, these photo ID laws, they might make sense uh for people who are making a concerted effort to go out and vote, um, all these petition signatures, these are spontaneous events. Nobody is carrying around identification, uh, in the thoughts that may be approached to sign a petition, um, just not really the way that that goes, um, and there are undoubtedly going to be people who approached To sign a petition. And they want to sign it, uh, and are denied the right to sign it, uh, because they don't have uh the right piece of plastic uh on them. This in coordination with all the other bills, um, is, yeah, it just piles up. Um, if I were to. I'm reaching to grab an apple off of a tree, right? Let's say that that Apple is valid access. The photo ID law. That's like Let's say it's cutting off my pinky. I can still grab that apple. Not pleasant, it's not, you know. But then when we add that on with All the other Things, eventually I'm going up there with just a thumb. Yeah, uh, it just It all raises costs. And risks for ordinary people. Who want to be involved in. The civic process in a way that was guaranteed to them in the Arkansas Constitution. Um And when ordinary Arkansans are pushed. Out of the process. It only leaves special interests and out of state. Uh Groups with deep pockets. And People no longer rule. A lot of people came out today. Um, and that seemed to kind of annoying, uh, some of the Committee members, um, I just wonder how many people would have to come out against this in order for it to change anything. It seems like the people who were here to speak today, um, if they were voting on this, the. Answer would be overwhelming. Any questions? All right, Mr. Peoples has spoken against the bill. Any questions? By the committee, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Peoples. Appreciate you being here. Next we have Kamara seals. Miss Seals are recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you. Good evening again, uh, Kamara Seals, uh, resident, um. A pine bluff work here, uh, in Little Rock, policy director at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel and uh what I'm gonna do this time. when I was speaking on two. The other bill 211 um when I was speaking against that bill, uh, the staff was handing out this piece of uh this graphic so now for 208 I want to refer to this graphic because my point on 208 and it's kind of been challenging because we were kind of prepared to talk about all of the bills at one time and uh because my testimony was gonna build up, you know, they were gonna build because, you know. We got a bunch of bad bills the way we see it and it was going to, um, you know, present present a picture so now I can kind of present this picture, uh, so with, with 208 and the and the Having to show a driver's license, um, testimony has already been given. That we don't need to present a driver's license or a photo ID I should say uh uh government issued photo ID. When someone registers to vote. But this process now just to get this just for a citizen. To sign a petition to participate in the process, you're asking for an ID. Now you've asked the question, uh, some of you have asked the question like to be answered and others more rhetorical, but is it so bad to show an ID? Well, it's not, we do show an ID for, you know, when we go to vote, we show an ID, uh, when we buy a beverages and when we, you know, buy other things that require ID, right? But in this process in this process, what we're We're trying to explain for those of us who are doing this work grassroots. It gets to be the, it, it, it's building and creating a process that just has a bunch of layers. Like the young man was given about, you know, if he had the pinky, you know, he could reach up and still grab it. We can still do the work. We're gonna do the work. We're not going away, we're gonna do the work, but what we're concerned about is that so much is being added. To the process, we just don't even see. The importance. Of, you know, because if somebody tells us they are registered voter, then they should just be able to to to sign. The, the uh petition. And remember when I said it earlier in my comments. the first time I was up here, we are very concerned about making sure that everybody that signs these petitions are registered voters. Because it's a lot of work. Uh, it takes a lot of time. Now when we did this with the education ballot measure, we had an internal process of quality control, OK? And so we have that internal process that you heard Kwame and I worked together Kwame Abdul Bay. He's been up here a couple of times. We worked together in the same office now we had internal controls where we did some verification because we didn't want people, we did not want people. to sign If they were not registered voters. That was, that was just too much extra and it was going to take away from the effort that we were trying to do, so that doesn't so so having people just sign and sign again and so we didn't do that. That doesn't serve us, we're grassroots, you know, we're out in the trenches, uh, uh, we're at the churches and the festivals, so, so, and, and this last effort we had was, was a volunteer effort so it doesn't serve us well. So we're just saying. When you look at this graphic and you look at the time it takes right now for us to get someone's signature. On one of these petitions for direct democracy, there are 4 simple steps, you know, we ask them if they're registered voter. So we have to take them at their word. We trust the voters, right? So we trust them that they are who they say they are, um, we show them about where the sign, talk about the amendment, we answer any questions and we get their signature and we move on to the next person, so if we if your bill was to pass here tonight. 208 we would have all of these additional steps, well, a couple of additional steps. I know 207, uh, hasn't been heard, but we would have these additional steps and whereas right now it takes us on average 2 minutes, 2 minutes for this process, it will go to 15 minutes if this slew of bills uh that's being presented, uh, was to pass. Now that is. time that is precious time, but at the same time, we respect the law as it is now, OK? We don't want any voter fraud. We want this to be a clean process and we worked very diligently. We worked diligently to make sure we, as a matter of fact, the person who ran our uh what do you call it, our internal um quality control is here and he worked around the clock. It was way more than he thought it was gonna be, but we, but we were just that serious about not turning in to the Secretary of State, any names that weren't accurate because we wanted a clean, you know, we knew the number that we had to have, we wanted that number, we didn't want names thrown out, so all I'm saying is we trust the voter, we just think this is overboard, we think this is just uh you're creating too much bureaucracy and again I'm surprised because usually the conservatives are not the ones that want this extra bureaucracy. Uh, so that is quite surprising, but we feel the process works. It, it, it works, it's good, we abide by it and uh we just think uh SB 8 SB 208 having to show a photo ID is just simply unnecessary because when they do go vote. Once we get it on the ballot, whatever we're doing once we get it on the ballot, then when they go vote. They're gonna have to show their photo ID at that particular time. So, um, that those are my comments. I would ask you to consider voting against this bill, Senate Bill 208. Uh, help us cut back on red tape and the mark and and and uh bureaucracy and uh yeah, so, uh, so, you know, I'll entertain any questions or, or any comments you wanna give send my way and Representative Gasaway we do appreciate you having your committee here tonight. I have spoken in committees over the years that before the first person speak they limit debate to 2 minutes. I've been in those So thank you for hearing us. Thank you all for being here tonight. We do appreciate it, we know you hear us, we know you hear us, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Seals, thank you so much for being here. Next we have. Rochelle Britton. Speak against the bill. I'm pretty sure I'm the last one. OK. So, I Yeah OK. Thanks. Thanks. Yes. My, yes, my name is Rochelle Britton. I'm from Jacksonville and I'm here currently representing myself, though I have worked as a canvasser and And worked and worked with and and worked with Kwame and some of his past bills to pass initiatives too there's referendums actually. Um And, and first I I thank you for actually hearing us. I've been in meetings like, it's like Kamara said, was 5 where they just cut them off, just cut them down to 2 minutes or sometimes cut them off altogether. Thank you for hearing us. We have most of what I say, most of what I really wanted to say has already been said. This is just drip, drip, drip. Another piece of red tape. To, to, to, to tie down the process. But I did know 11 particular piece of red tape that is specific to. Peculiar piece of red tape that is specific to this bill. You have by referencing the voter ID requirements in For for voting, That means every canvasser has to be, has to be trained in this, in what specific IDs are allowable and not allowable in Arkansas. Now, when you do voting, well, the poll workers are, are trained. Every trained we pay, you know, we pay them to try, we pay them to sit through training, I think, I believe. And then after sitting through training, we the I think the State Board of Election commissioners develops the training for them. We, they know what to look for. For. A lot of other places that need ID. If you, if you're, if you're trying to buy alcohol or tobacco. They're the, the cashier is taught. What, what kind of ID to look for, what they're supposed to be looking for and who they're supposed to ask ID from. But But with this and, and, and, and then there's move on. The deep pocket people like the, like the, like the folks behind the issue too. They just got they just throw another million in and. I and the To do, to do whatever to do whatever they need to do with their paid solicitors. But this creates, but this is an extra burden on Grassroots. petitioners and, and so, and canvassers like me. I, I work with the grassroots. This is, this is It's This is not Regnant populace. This, this, this is trying to stop. People from stop us from from from from stop stuff from actually coming through. I, I urge you to vote no on SB 208. Thank you. Are there any questions by the committee? Thank you, Miss Britton, for being here. And last it appears we have Bill Kopsky. I wasn't snuck in behind you. to speak against the bill. Mr. Kopsky, you're recognized and if you would just state your name in any group you're here representing and you're recognized to present your remarks. So I'm the last thing standing between beverages and pillows. That's great, uh, the, uh, so my name is Bill Cosy. I'm the director of Thorn Public Policy Panel, the Citizens First Congress. There's a few things, um. That haven't, I don't think it been said yet, and that I want to add my comments are specifically about SPOA, uh, but for most of my comments, uh, you can take them for the whole of center hammer anti um Ballot measure package of bills. The uh first is a principle, we trust voters to make decisions. Voters are Adults, uh, they can make decisions, they can figure out the truth and the fiction they don't need, uh, you ought to babysit them, decide what they can vote on, what they can't vote on. They're smart enough to know what they want to sign, what they don't want to sign, they're smart enough to decide if they want to vote for a package or not for a package, and I'm concerned when I see legislation that's trying to protect voters from themselves. Uh, it usually doesn't work out very well. Um, these bills to us look like Nothing more than a sheer power grab to make the process harder without any legitimate um benefit from the package of bills. The uh I want to emphasize a point. There has been no evidence of fraud submitted to this committee or in a court of law around the signature petitions from the last election cycle. I don't believe there's been a conviction for signature fraud, and I don't know if there ever has been. Now, one. So my understanding is that fraud is a legal term. It's like accusing someone of burglary or murder or something, a crime, right? Should be provable. If you have evidence of fraud, I suggest you take it to your attorney General. I suggest that you take it to your prosecutor. I suggest they take action. It shouldn't happen if they if the Attorney general has that evidence and didn't act, I presume it's because he doesn't believe he can win a case. Point of order. Let's hear your point of order. Not speaking to the bill. We're talking about photo ID and requirement for photo ID. I do the AG I appreciate your point of order, uh, Representative Beatty. I do think he's speaking generally to the bill represent Beatty does have a point, however, that we are discussing Senate Bill 208, which, uh, relates specifically to showing photo ID. So if you can try to narrow your comments, but I do understand that you are speaking generally and broadly about the issues, how this bill relates. So you're recognized to continue. Thank you, Chair, and I also actually want to echo the comments on appreciation for how the committee's been run. Appreciate you all staying so late and listening to to everybody. I appreciate, appreciate that a great deal. I was speaking to fraud because it's been used as a justification for this whole package of bills, including SB 208, so that's why I'm addressing that point. Now, where I grew up, Someone accused you of something, you would say, where's your proof? Show it. And that's my question here. Prove it. Where's the prosecution? Where is the even case brought. So, I think this whole notion that we have this massive voter signature fraud problem and therefore we need this package of bills as a false proposition. The system that we have works well as it is. Now there's also been the presumption that Any mistake has been therefore fraud. Mistakes happen. It is a chaotic process to collect that many signatures. I made a mistake this time signing my own organization's petition. I didn't sign my own because that would be improper if someone else got my signature, but I signed it as Bill Kopsky because that's how I live in the world is Bill Kopsy, but my voter registration is William Kopsky and Brady over there doing uh quality control, found it, and he said, Bill, you idiot. He enjoyed telling his boss that, and we took a black marker through that and then I signed another petition from somebody else. Mistakes happen. Not every mistake is fraud. Again, if you have evidence of intentional voter fraud, bring it. Bring it It is not in the interests of any campaign to willfully collect invalid signatures. Do you know why? Because they get caught. The Secretary of State's office is a phenomenal job of checking signatures and calling ones that don't fit. If anyone had video evidence or any other kind of evidence of voter fraud or signature fraud. They can take it again to their prosecutor. They could take it to the Attorney General. There are multiple ways to get that looked into and pursued. The fact that it hasn't happened tells me that it's not happening. There's too many big interests who are super interested in in who would love nothing more than have that conviction happen. The uh Finally, if a person thinks that the Secretary of State's office failed to call a signature. There's a process where special interest groups who are opposed to a ballot measure and sometimes we've been those special interest groups, sometimes not, but you can challenge the Secretary of State's findings on signatures before the courts. I can't tell you how many times in the past decades we've seen the corks rule that these signatures are valid or these signatures are invalid after the Secretary of State's already made their ruling. All of those decisions by the Secretary of State's office to call, and then especially the court challenges that come after happen after the deadline to collect signatures. So if you think about this, if my organization, say willfully collected 10,000 invalid signatures. First of all, we'd be putting our 63 year old Organizations, history. On the line, but secondly, those signatures would get tossed in August or September when it is too late for us to do anything to cure it for a campaign that we've maybe spent 4 years, thousands and thousands of volunteer hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue. It is absolutely not in the self-interest of any campaign to willfully collect signatures fraudulently. You have no evidence that it is occurring at scale. If you did, there would be a prosecution. I think this bill asking us to look at uh uh a photo ID that doesn't even tell us if they're a registered voter or not. I mean, the point is that people that signed the petitions are supposed to be registered voters, and you're asking us to check an ID that tells us nothing about the thing that they're supposed to do. So I, with that, I think I'm, I'm wrapped up and get out of the way for drinks and pillows, but I really appreciate you all listening to this and I'd appreciate a no vote on this. Are there any questions by the committee? Saying that Mr. Kopsky, thank you very much for your remarks. With that, we've reached the end of the for and against. And Representative Underwood, Senator Hammer, you're recognized close for your bills. Yeah Uh Oh thank you committee, and I'll echo kind of some of the comments that were made about uh per permitting people to speak and, and give them the opportunity to be heard. I, I appreciate you guys for taking the time to do that as well. Um, I'll just note a couple of things, uh, you know, the, the voter ID requirement is the same standard that we require in November when you go vote at the ballot. And so, uh, we referenced 7, 110,140, which we kind of discussed earlier. Those are the same requirements. There are, if you meet certain criteria, there are uh Um, it's pretty expansive and there are situations where you can use an electronic copy, not to kind of get into something that's maybe not relevant, but we did pass, well, on the House side there was a bill, I think a week or two ago about uh your driver's license being electronic as well. So, you know, that could also improve that as well, but that's already in law. Um, You know, it was kind of brought up kind of what the point of this was too, and I, I will note that by providing a, a photo ID. It also keeps you from signing somebody else's name onto the ballot, somebody who didn't consent to having their name on the petition. And so I think that's an important point as well. And then on the constitutional issue, one, you know, if you don't have your ID you can go get your ID. Most people are gonna carry their ID in most situations, and secondly, again, AG's office has reviewed this and believes that this will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Um, I don't think Senator Hammer has any additional comments, but, uh, with that, I'm closed and I'll make a motion to pass. Representative Underwood has closed for his bill, and he's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Meeks should recognized. Thank you, Chairman and colleagues, I know it's late, so I'm gonna be real brief on, on this and as I, as I sit and listen to the, to the discussion today, you know, we, we, we're in 2025, we're talking about all these paper ballots, and I'm sitting here thinking, how hard would it be to make an app so canvassers scan the back of the driver's license. The app then goes, hits the voter database, confirms that voters a legitimate voter within the state of Arkansas. Once that confirmed confirmation. has taken place. The voter signs it and it's done and and it's all handled digitally that makes it a whole lot simpler for the canvassers, for the voters. So anyways, Arkansas they're gonna look into it. I don't know if it can be done or not, just, but until then, uh, I think this is a step in the right direction to make sure that the people who are signing are legitimate Arkansas voters. All right, is there any additional discussion on the motion, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a general point that uh no matter how this vote turns out, I'll be voting no for reasons that I've articulated throughout today, but no matter how this vote turns out, I just want everybody who showed up and stuck around this whole time to know that um your voice mattered and we are grateful to have heard from you, uh, whatever the outcome. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion Representative Crawford recognize. Thank you and I feel the same way. You guys are important. This is how as Joey McCutcheon says the sausage is made. We're all tired. So when you leave here. No matter the vote, don't think your voice wasn't heard. And you say that doesn't matter. It does matter. It does matter. Because you can run for office and you can get your butts up here and you can sit here and you can be the ones that people think are terrible. That's what you can do. Because we all can do that. I never dreamed I would be here. I don't know why I'm here. But I'm telling you, we listened. The people in my district don't think like all the people that showed up here today and you have to realize that. And you have to realize just because every boat doesn't go your way. That it's not against your democracy. I love people. That's why I'm here. If you don't like the process, I challenge you to go vote, go run, go sign up. Go sign up to run. And take care of the problem the way you would have it taken care of. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the process. All right, is there any additional discussion on the motion? Seeing no further discussion on the motion. We have a motion to pass all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The Oz Abbott. See two hands. Call the roll. Representative Meeks, Representative Meeks, yes. Representative Wardla. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry, Representative Barry, yes. Representative Mayberry. Representative Mayberry, yes. Representative Crawford, Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans, Representative in it. Representative in it, no. Representative McIlroy Representative McIlroy, no. Representative Ray Representative Ray, yes. Representative Beatty, Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Carr, Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood, Representative Underwood, yes. Representative Long Representative Long, yes. Representative Hawk. Representative Hark, yes. Representative Rose. Representative Rose, yes. Representative Wooldridge. Representative Warridge, no. Representative Beck. Representative Beck, yes. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Committee, thank you so much and for all those in attendance, I echo the comments. We appreciate you being here. Thank you all so much. This committee is adjourned.