Senate State Agencies, Feb. 11, part 2 - public testimony. Chair Sen. Flippo gives public permission to speak to the whole slate of bills so they don't have to come back multiple times. First up: Jimmie Cavin. Cavin: What gives the legislature the right to mandate that I have to read something to sign it? That's my choice. It's not the legislature's business what I read or don't read. I don't disagree w/ the value Sen. Hammer puts on a signature, but think about voting: are you going to mandate... I have to read everything I vote on? The poll watcher has to watch me read everything? When will you mandate that I have to take a test before I vote? That's where it sounds like this is going. He's moving to 212 (previous comments were 210) Creation of a new LE division will obviously cost money There's no way you can grow government with no cost to the taxpayer, he says. He also points out that this new division is investigator, judge, and jury - there's no due process here, or at least not due process without paying big money for a lawyer. Cavin says this sounds like the Gestapo. "The people are here today to tell you they don't want your product. This is nothing more than an attempt to undercut the citizen's rights in the Constitution, and the citizens are here to speak against it." Next up: Nikki Park (sp) with an Arkansas pregnancy support group; she says she has evidence that people were told to sign the period poverty bill before the bill was written? She also claims that she has evidence canvassers left out petitions without monitoring them. She says if they hadn't been out with canvassers, they would've never had seen this. She also claims that it's incorrect to say the abortion amendment was for "reproductive rights" - this is a matter of opinion and the whole point of putting something on the ballot. It's a bit hard to follow, but she seems to think only certain people are allowed to canvass? Deeply confused here. She's also conflating counter-canvassers' legitimate first amendment rights to track canvassers with the law? Y'all. She closes with "it just needs boundaries put up." This keeps coming up: the idea that "a lot of people didn't understand the language." I don't know about y'all, but I trust Arkansans a bit more than these folks. They can read. She closes. Sen Payton with a question. He asks how paid canvassers work - are they paid per signature (no) or what? Ms. Park claims she has evidence that people were told they'd get $500 for creating altercations? Wild stuff. Sen. Tucker asks if they ever reported any of these alleged infractions to police. She says yes and to SoS, but police never did anything (again, you could theoretically just enforce current law!) Courtney Hud up next, speaking against. Here today to express her strong opposition to all six bills. They're all unnecessary and an attempt to strip Arkansans of their constitutional rights. Current system has in place tons of rules for vetting initiatives, which WORK per SOS testimony. Just because no one was prosecuted, that's on the government. The only reason these bills exist is to make it harder for citizens to have a say. She points out that Sen. Hammer is already running for SoS and that these bills are poison pills designed to intimidate voters. Hammer notably not meeting her eyes at the moment. She notes that these also create unnecessary hurdles for disabled folks; these problems don't exist, there simply is not massive fraud. Whitney Perry (I think), speaking for, again what she claims to have witnessed (part of the decline to sign group) She said that they saw "two young females" in a Dollar General parking lot, and were accosted by a woman screaming at them (this is rude but, you know, free speech is often rude). She claims that signers at this location weren't shown the amendment (the amendments are required to be stapled to signature pages), at that canvassers were very aggressive. This is an odd theme starting to appear - that people were paid to cause altercations? Jen Standerfer up next to speak against. She's an election lawyer, and she disagrees vehemently with Hammer's belief none of these are unconstitutional. Talking generally, her primary underlying concern is twofold - right of a voter to carry/sign, and federal free speech. Asking someone to sign is fundamentally speech; it's exactly the same as a candidate asking for someone's vote. This is a matter of law. She wants Hammer to hold himself to the same standard he's demanding of the people. What if he had to show ID before he asked for someone's vote? Under law, issue speech has the same protections as campaign speech. Knocking on doors is the most fundamental, grassroots speech we have in society - 1-1, face to face, reaching out to fellow citizens because we care. Government has no business interrupting that. Standerfer says she hates corporate influence in the petition process, but SCOTUS has already made that call. These bills at their core hold people to a higher standard than he's willing to hold himself. We should celebrate people debating in public. Tucker w/ a Q re: prosecutorial immunity, as she used to be a prosecutor. She points out that immunity often makes people lie; it makes them not credible to a jury because they got such a sweet deal. This body enacting a law that prosecutors *must* grant immunity is coercive. The constitution would override that provision. Hammer asks if she ever plea-bargained someone down if they agreed to testify? She says not down to a lesser offense, but occasionally for fewer years. Her approach was to be honest with the jury what the deal was; she was honest about credibility issues and told juries that evaluating credibility is part of their job. She always corroborated testimony that was granted under a plea deal. She just wanted to push back against the "common practice" comment earlier. Sullivan: your analogy with asking for votes vs. asking for signatures plays out, because I don't automatically get that vote I asked for. A: true enough, but free speech is free speech. Tucker: following up on Sullivan's question. Again, he points out that voting and signature collection are different processes. A signature is not a vote. Standerfer says correct; when we talk about bad actors, we're talking about sponsors, not canvassers. We need to talk about signers and canvassers' rights. We're not infringing on sponsors' rights here, it's citizens. Hammer: what do you say to the testimony that SoS office got hundreds of calls that want their names removed? People who sign are vulnerable to good faith from canvassers. Standerfer doesn't necessarily disagree with giving folks the ability to remove their names, despite practical concerns. She was struck about the "hundreds of people" calling in; that means *most* people didn't call in. So again, process is working as intended! "We have to assume voters are doing what they choose to do." Missed a question from King, but sounded like he's asking about FOIA again. She hasn't done the research but has the same question - would like to know if the investigations are subject to FOIA. Both of them point out prosecution is a pretty specialized thing; it's under Title 5 in the code, not Title 7 where election law is. She doesn't like giving that much power to unelected/untrained investigators. She has big concerns the "preponderance of evidence" standard is Constitutional. She also notes that in general, she thinks the Supreme Court does its job. Violations are investigated, prosecuted, litigated. Process is working as intended, so why change the process? King notes the increased burden for grassroots groups here too. Tucker notes that the ballot measure is required to be stapled to petition pages, as well as the misdemeanor statute. His point here is this: currently, everyone has the right to review the entire measure before you sign! We've been saying this! All the info is right there!! Again, Hammer is A) grabbing power and B) shockingly dismissive of voters' capability to understand for themselves what's going on. Back to Standerfer: she grew up in an Arkansas where people took care of each other. We've moved away from that but collecting signatures is a way to bridge gaps. Sullivan: what protections are there for an individual who's had their name signed by someone else? A: it's resolved in the verification process. You could theoretically have a fake ID. Standerfer on constitutionality: Obviously AG says these are constitutional, he's representing you. Supreme Court doesn't work for him, and that's not his job. It would certainly never happen that the AG might be wrong! (This is sarcasm) Dotson: Is there anything on current forms that notifies signers that they're essentially sponsoring legislation and their names will be public at the end of this? A: short answer, no. But as a matter of process, they're legally *not* the sponsor - that's the ballot question committee. As she carried FOIA petitions, she never encountered questions about the process. Questions were always about the law itself on the petition. A few people did have questions about FOIA and she told them their names would be FOIA-able. Payton moves to end debate at 5 after 1pm and move to a vote. We're only about a 3rd of the way through the first page of 4 pages of people signed up to speak. Tucker makes a substitute motion to limit testimony to 3 minutes + questions per person. Dotson makes another substitute motion to limit testimony to 30 minutes total. Flippo is chatting with staff for a second. Okay motion is to limit testimony to 3 minutes (I think) - weird procedural stuff? Hammer asks if there will be equal time for for/against testimony. Really worried about the rules apparently! Current witness speaking FOR SB210 specifically. She's giving roughly the same speech - a canvasser came up, seemed to misrepresent the petitions, etc etc. She says it's apparently a problem that canvassers carried multiple petitions - people would just sign one after another. ... yes? They're still capable OF READING. These people have so little respect for voters, it's genuinely shocking. Next up, Joey McCutcheon speaking AGAINST. There's no more important mechanism for holding government accountable than the ballot initiative process. It hurts the people. Talking about 210 specifically: notes that the 2016 marijuana amendment was several thousand words long. No way to read it. The FOIA amendment was also long! This is a solution looking for a problem. One more note: INCREDIBLY ironic that public testimony is being limited on.... ... a slate of bills rolling back direct democracy. McCutcheon notes that people also don't understand misdemeanors; it's obviously a scare tactic. "This is fundamental to our republic." That's three minutes for him. John Gaskin, a pastor of a First Baptist Church. He's giving the exact same spiel: someone came up, asked for signatures, claims that people were misrepresenting the abortion amendment by calling it "women's health" Again, this is a matter of opinion. The whole *point* of the amendment was to hash out - at the ballot box - was about women's health or not! That is a free speech issue!! He claims that he knows his community and people wouldn't have signed it if they knew. All ballot initiatives are ATTACHED to the signature sheet. Tobias Peeples (sp) - speaking against. Had to ask off work to come talk! The SoS doesn't need any more reasons to pull stuff off the ballot; SoS has been pretty successful at that so far. These laws that are being proposed have an adverse affect - obviously they'll intimidate citizens. If you tell someone they might be committing a misdemeanor, of course they will be scared! People do not understand the distinction between misdemeanors and harsher crimes. Tobias says this will also massively increase the cost. If we want a system that works for the people, this is bad. Another person speaking FOR the bills. Do we want to put money on what her story will sound like? Dawn Shell is her name. She claims that the person who asked her to sign didn't have the initiative attached. That is already against the law, and obviously those signatures should be cut! Not really going to bother repeating this story; again, it's the same thing for the most part. wait wait she says she was deceived into signing the abortion amendment and then VOTED AGAINST IT - it.. was never on the ballot? Maybe should've gotten your story straight! She repeats that she voted against it again under questioning from Tucker! Oh boy Kristen Foster up next speaking against the bills. Says it's obvious intimidation. You basically have to be a policy expert to carry petitions under these laws. She's specifically speaking against 212 as well. As written, it would also apply to voter registration forms! Chilling effect on non-profits that engage voters. If someone makes a mistake on their application, they could conceivably be investigated by SoS. Lots of info can't be verified in the field, and it should be on the SoS to verify the info. That's the office's whole job! She closes with "Hammer wondered why out of state people are calling him; why are out of state people donating $14 million to the Governor's campaign?" Payton moves to end debate and vote on 210. This is disgusting, by the way. People have taken off work and driven from all over the state. Hammer says that he thinks enough discussion has been had. When Sen. Hammer is tired, I guess we're all done! Cool, thanks Kim. 210, 208, 207 have now passed. 212 up now. roll calling this one: King, Tucker, Payton all vote no. SB212 does NOT pass out of committee. 211 passes. 209 passes. So, to sum: all but 212 pass out of committee. It did not get a "DO NOT PASS", so he could conceivably bring it back. Dark day for democracy in Arkansas. @unroll.skywriter.blue unroll