House State Agencies

February 5, 2025

 

SB 3: Prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment (Passed)

Representative Mary Bentley Chairman, Committee, thank you so much for allowing me to be here today to present a very important bill. And I just want to tell you that Senator Sullivan is sick with the flu and he cannot join us today. So you are stuck with me. All right. Let's begin with SB 3 . In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson, with most of his support coming from Republicans, passed the Civil Rights Act. That law reversed years of mandated discrimination. Johnson at that time recognized two distinct populations in America, black and white. And as a provisional remedy, Johnson signed a very limited executive order to affirmatively assist minors as they seek to enroll in higher education and to obtain employment. 

That's the beginning of affirmative action. I think that we would all agree that was a very good move at the time, the 1960s. Now, 60 years later, we're dramatically different than we were at that time frame. While we do have pockets of racism remaining in our nation, the notion that America is a racist country is simply false. For those specific instances of hatred that persist, we have powerful state and federal anti-discrimination laws that this law does not stop. It's time for us to look and to move forward. As you all know, the Supreme Court has aptly declared affirmative action is illegal in higher education. 

And on January 21st of 2025, President Trump rescinded Johnson's abused executive order because that executive order was limited and it was very much abused across our nation. I'm going to read parts of President Trump's executive order, and this is from January 21st, 2025. 

'The purpose of section one. Longstanding federal civil rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. These civil rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As president, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans. 

Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential  institutions of American society, including the federal government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race and sex based preferences under the guise of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

These diversity, equity, inclusion accessibilities violate the civil rights laws of this nation. These illegal policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government and the medical, aviation and law enforcement communities. Yet, in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed firsthand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they are capable of doing. 

The federal government is charged with enforcing our civil rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination. It is the policy of the United States to protect civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work. Thus, the president has ended affirmative action in the United States of America.' 

It is time for Arkansas to move forward. It's time for Arkansas to catch up with the law and to eliminate state sanctioned discrimination and preferential treatment. And that's exactly what SB 3 does. So if you guys will take a minute and pull out the bill, I'm going to go through the bill. It's a very important bill. I want to take the time to go through exactly what the bill says. After reading the bill, I think you will all agree, the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America, all people are treated equally. 

All people are treated equally. And so that's what we need to return to. We need to focus on those critical needs areas. And that's what I love the most about this bill, is that we're focusing on critical needs areas, no matter what the color, the race or the sex of that person. We want to make sure that all critical needs are covered. And that's what the bill focuses on, critical needs in our state. And I would say it does not end any program. It expands every program to make sure all those that are in critical needs areas can be addressed. 

So we'll start out just with the first. I'll read the very beginning of section one. 'The intent of this legislation is that the General Assembly intends for this act to prohibit discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The General Assembly does not intend for this statue to affect any preferences provided to veterans under the law, based on their status as a veteran.' This is very important. The last time when we ran this bill, we did not have that in there. So make sure that veterans are not not affected by this bill. Okay. 

So if we look there, the rest of sections two and three are  really just getting rid of equity and replacing it with equality. Again, in the United States of America and now the state of Arkansas would treat people equally. Everybody treated equally. So as you can see, 'civil rights' is crossed out and replaced with 'desegregation and nondiscrimination' throughout that section. Okay. Section four, we're just crossing out it again anything that was with affirmative action and treating people unequally. 

That's what it gets rid of in section three, section four and five. Throughout there, we're just removing affirmative action in Arkansas. Section six, it gets rid of the Arkansas Higher Education annual report. Section seven gets rid of the higher education minority retention program. Section eight removes affirmative action programs. Now under section nine again we have replaced minority with critical needs. I know that in my district alone, I have high areas of Hispanics, black students, all race of students, white students that are really in critical needs areas that need special help. And so we're replacing that with critical needs so we can focus our attention in the state of Arkansas where it needs to be, on critical needs. 

Same with section 11 and through there. So on page 11, we'll look at section 21, prohibition of discrimination or preferential treatment by state entity entities. As used in the section, state means the state of Arkansas, a city, a county, or an institution of higher education, a public school district, a  special school district, or a political subdivision or governmental instrument of the state. The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to an individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement. 

This section applies only to an action taken after the effective date of this act, so it does not go backwards. It just goes forward and moves Arkansas forward. So again it's really important. This section does not, and this again on page 11, This section does not prohibit the consideration by the state of bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal function of state employment, public education or state procurement. 

Number two. This section does not invalidate a court order or consent decree that is enforced as of the effective date of this act, and this section does not prohibit an action necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal program, if ineligibility would demonstrably result in a loss of federal funds to the state. Again, any preference given to veterans on matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement, or preempts a state discrimination law or federal discrimination law. 

And then, very importantly, if a person believes his or her rights have been impacted under this section, they may bring a civil cause of action in a circuit court to enjoin a violation of the section, recover reasonable court costs and attorney's fees. An action brought against this section if this court finds that a violation occurred, the court shall award injunctive relief and court costs. So that pretty much goes over it. And the rest of it is just making sure that our state agencies report to this body on how they're complying with this law. Okay, friends, that pretty much goes over the law. And I will take questions from members of the committee.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you. Representative Bentley. Representative Bentley has explained her bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Ennett, you're recognized for a question.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, Chairman Gazaway. Representative Bentley, I've sat through the Senate committee and I also watched the debate on the Senate floor. And I just listened to your presentation, and I did not hear any type of statistical information showing that this is harmful, that this harmfully impacts Arkansans here. Can you speak to that?

 

Representative Mary Bentley This strictly lines up with what's going on at the federal level to get rid of affirmative action. I know about instances of people across my district have reported that they have been negatively impacted by our current laws that we have in place, school enrollment, scholarships, multiple things over the years that I've been in here. My constituents are firmly in favor of SB 3.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay. Chair, can I have leeway? Can I ask another question?

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Of course.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Go ahead. Okay. So I know maternal mortality is your one of the things that you are working on here in Arkansas. African American women in Arkansas are faced, disproportionately, our numbers are higher. If this bill goes into effect, how would this help efforts in solving the maternal mortality issue with African Americans here in Arkansas?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Well, I think this bill, it, again, focuses on critical needs. But I have a bill on the House floor today that will help get certified nurse midwives in our state. Arkansas has been the most restrictive state in the nation for certified nurse midwives. We have not allowed certified nurse midwives to practice, and in states across the nation where they have high rates of minorities that are struggling with maternal mortality, they have implemented certified nurse midwives and seen a huge dramatic positive effect. 

So that's one of the biggest things that I've seen. So I have been to numerous conferences to see what can we do with maternal health here in Arkansas, and we are moving in the right direction. I am very excited about the things that we're doing this session, so that bill on the House floor will greatly affect that. So again, we're focusing on where our critical needs are in the state, regardless of someone's color or their race. 

We want to make sure that we get critical need areas addressed. And one of the biggest awards I got was from the Maternal Health Commission, a legislative award. I have worked diligently to make sure that we address those needs across our state, and we want to focus on them. I think we will be able to focus those areas of critical need wherever they are in the state. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ennett, do you have more questions? Okay. All right. Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, you mentioned, I think it was when you were reading the statement at the beginning, that programs like the ones that you're seeking to eliminate work against the values of hard work, determination, those kinds of things. I'm sorry.

I'm probably butchering the quote, but I think you know what I'm referring to. I guess my question is, could you say a little bit more about how retention and recruitment programs that are aimed to help traditionally underrepresented populations, particularly when we are looking to mirror the populations that they serve, say, in a school district, how do those programs undermine hard work?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think every child in Arkansas deserves the best and the brightest, and we need to base things on merit. I want the best person there for those kids. It shouldn't matter the color of their skin. What should matter is that they're getting the best and the brightest in those positions, and we're addressing those areas of critical need. 

I think that we've seen that on the national level with what the president was talking about with the recent crash we had of the helicopter pilot that was not trained and should not have been flying as she was there. I mean, that's all in under investigation now. But we need the best and the brightest. 

We don't need someone based on what the color of their skin is. Every child in Arkansas should have the best they can get for a teacher that's in their environment. And I think that's what this based on. We want it all based on merit and on hard work and that's what those kids need to see.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you. And I certainly agree that all of Arkansas's kids deserve the best and the brightest. I'm thinking of school districts like ours in Northwest Arkansas, where there may be a need for, say, something like a Marshallese liaison or a Latino liaison between students and faculty, between families and staff and teachers. 

When we are looking at creating a pool of folks who are going to be best at that job, when we are looking at doing recruiting for those jobs, I'm having a very hard time understanding how recruiting based on, in those instances, if we wanted to base it on national origin as something that would be helpful. We want to create a pool of folks who are going to be able to do this work. I just don't understand why that undermines hard work.

 And it actually seems like we are going into communities and encouraging hard work. We are asking folks to step up and do these roles. And I guess my fear is there are certain jobs where I believe that, in fact, national origin, for instance, is critical to your ability to do the job. We are, with this bill, undermining school districts' potential to even consider that, or to give anybody preferential treatment based on what I think would be considered a critical component of their ability to do that job. And I guess that's kind of my question for you is, how do retention efforts that are based on specific things like that undermine hard work?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think, again, I'm going to go back to the statement our kids need the best and the brightest. If there's a person that's qualified that is able to translate, why would we care what color of their skin is? We want the people that can translate and reach those children the best. I think we want the best. And I'm just referring back to that. 

I think, you know, this is not something new. Our nation has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. I look back at what was done to the Irish folks back in New York City. I hope that all of you have seen the movie Cabrini, and talk about what they did with the Irish kids back there and the kids that were mistreated. And we've had this across our nation. We want the best and the brightest. I don't care what somebody's skin color is or where they come from or where they're born. 

Our kids deserve the best. And if that person can translate, I think that's what the school can look at. It's not gonna undermine anybody. If they're doing a great job, they can be hired. And that's what it's about. And this is the United States of America. Everybody should be treated equally. And that's what I want us to do. Thank you.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney And I certainly agree with that. I guess sort of switching to maybe gender. As a different example, can you just explain how you see this bill impacting gender specific programs? I'm thinking about things like Girls on the Run or my girls do a Girls in Stem program at their school. How do you see this? Providing those programs, I think, is ipso facto giving preferential treatment based on gender. How are those programs going to be impacted moving forward if this bill goes through?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I don't see this impacting things that we're doing with Girls in Stem. I think that we can still continue to do that. We're not stopping girls sports. This bill doesn't stop girls sports. It doesn't stop things that we're doing there. And I can tell you, I think the best thing to do differentiate that was our former colleague Deborah Ferguson. I'm sure you remember her speech on the House floor when she was actually opposing this bill. 

But she said when she was the same age as I was back in the early 1980s, when she went to dental school, there were five girls in her class. Now, last year, 50% of them were girls. So I think we've seen a great stride in women moving forward. And I think, again, we're all on an equal playing base. We don't need anybody to be the victim. We all need to strive and to work hard. And as a woman of my own business, I can understand this. You know, it's tough, but I worked hard. I worked hard. And we have a place that we're going to reach out and reach those critical needs area. If we're all focusing on where critical needs areas are, we can bring all of our state up and that's what I want to do.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Just one last question, Mister Chair. Thank you. One last question and then I will cede to somebody else. But I think everybody at this table appreciates the value of hard work. We wouldn't be here if we didn't do it and appreciate it. But I also think we all at this table can appreciate the value of having programs that are aimed towards specifically our young girls. 

I know that there are really important programs right now that are looking at getting girls more involved in science fields, technology fields, maybe thinking about starting entrepreneurship skills at a young age. Girls on the Run isn't a sport. It's technically considered a club. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just want to go back to the language of the bill that is providing those resources for clubs like that, for groups like that. 

Is preferential treatment based on gender? Can you point me to somewhere in this bill that shows me that would give me some confidence that those types of groups would be allowed to continue to exist?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I would say that the women in that area need to rise up and give some money and help donate if it's important, a cause for a club. Reach out to some very substantial women in your area. Let them be mentors and let them donate to the club. I think we look for the government for the answer for everything, and it's not. 

We need women to rise up and to be mentors for those young girls. I mean, we just started a program in Mayflower where we're reaching out to women to come in to be mentors and to be moms in the school. I'm going to reach out and bring our community and let that be the answer. And nothing in this bill would stop that.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Okay, okay. All right. Representative Collins, You're recognized.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, you talked about wanting the best and the brightest to  do things in our society. And I think we agree with that. I think most everybody agrees with that, that merit should be the priority. What about opportunity, though? Because, I mean, it's very clear and I don't think that you would disagree with this. Although if you do, please let me know that there are some people who are represented traditionally or otherwise in certain fields and in certain places, and they don't have the opportunity oftentimes to show their merit. 

For example, women in engineering, they're traditionally underrepresented there. So if we get rid of scholarship programs that are support women in engineering, then someone, a woman who is very bright, is very able, has merit, might not never have the opportunity to show that merit and demonstrate that in the field of engineering. 

And I think a lot of these programs that we're talking about simply doing away with are designed to increase opportunity, and then they would have the opportunity to show that they have merit and continue in their career and demonstrate that accordingly. So what do you think about that argument that in fact this is not supporting merit. And this is anti merit to take away these opportunities for people traditionally underrepresented.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think we have a female governor for the first time ever in this state. That shows that women are moving forward and women don't need preferential treatment. I'm sorry I find that very insulting. I apologize.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Okay. Why do you think that the governor talks about being the first woman governor? Why do you think that matters? Or do you think that matters?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think it's great. I'm very excited that I was the first woman ever elected in my district. I was the first Republican woman ever elected to my district. I think it's great. I don't know very many business owners in my state or my district. But you know what I do? I reach out. I help young girls. I encourage girls to be a page here. 

That's reaching out, being mentors and reaching out and doing things. It's not always the government program to fix things. It's us reaching out to community and being mentors and reaching out to women in our area. So again, we want the best and the brightest. And strong women can do great things. And that's what I'm telling you. 

We're in a day and age where companies are looking and wanting women, not just because they're women, because they see the value that women bring in a business. Women have a different perspective. Women bring great value. And we don't need to be victims. And we don't need preferential treatment to get where we need to be.

 

Representative Andrew Collins I think it's great too. I think it's great that you were the first representative who was a woman from your district, and I think it's great that the governor's the first woman governor. But I also think it makes my point is that there have been, traditionally women have been traditionally underrepresented in a great many areas over the years, and it is difficult. 

And I don't think that a program like this that encourages opportunity is something that we should reject. I don't think it's something that we should pretend is not an issue. There are people underrepresented from different minority groups, including women in many different fields. And I just think that your experience and the governing experience just drives home that point.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I would agree to disagree with you. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Wardlaw, did you have a question? Okay. Representative Mayberry, You're recognized.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as Representative Ray reminded all of us yesterday, read the bill. I have read the bill in the past. Looked over it. You know, because I was asking you some questions about it. So you know that this was not my first look at it today. But at 4:00 this morning, I was up and I was reading it again, and I was noticing on page three, it makes reference to this teacher and administrator recruitment and retention plan. 

And it said that there's a report due by August of 22. And I went, oh, okay. That must mean that we must have been in this recently by law, you know, in a previous session because we've updated it. So I went back and I found, sure enough, Act 646 of 2021. It was a bill that was brought by Senator Sturch and Representative Vaught, and it passed the Senate, 34 votes, and the House, 85 votes. 

So I voted for this bill. And this language that is being completely stricken out in page three, four and five back in 2021. So I went, okay, what were we doing back then and then what are we trying to do now and what has changed? So I've gone on record back in 2021 that I support this language. So help me and other legislators understand maybe some other things that have happened since 2021, maybe even a Supreme Court decision that helps us move the bar from where we stood in 2021 to now. Help us get there. I'm looking for some support and some help in getting from 2021 to now.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I'm sorry, I don't have that information for you. Senator Sullivan is sick in bed or maybe he would be able to help us with that. But I can get it back with you before we vote on the floor. But I don't have an answer to that question.  

And I have not heard any objections from this from Secretary Oliva, and I'm sure if there was an issue that he would have reached out to me to make sure that I knew that there was an issue. But obviously there's not an issue there. I've not heard an issue from the governor's office on this. So obviously there's not an issue at this point. So I'm sure you can reach out to them and verify that.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry I just was looking at it. It's a lot of reporting. It's not so much the, you know, you're going to hire this person over this person in that language. It's a lot of reporting from the school districts and the universities. And so I was just kind of wondering maybe we've heard that this reporting is very cumbersome. It refers to hiring a part time to a full time person in that language. And, you know, maybe this helps save some money. Maybe that money could be used to do something else. Is it a cumbersome thing, the reporting?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I'm sure that it is. But I would have to reach out to Secretary Oliva and get back with you to verify that, because I have not talked to him specifically. So I would not want to put any words in his mouth. But I know that the legislation that I passed for farm to school and for local foods bill has been a very cumbersome report, and we're trying to make that simplified. So it very well could be that it's been unnecessary. So a heavy burden for our districts. But I'm not going to say that without talking to him specifically. And I apologize. If I'd had time I would have reached out to him this morning, but I wasn't given that chance.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry 'm sorry. Again, this kind of all happened this morning. I was trying to gather my information as well.

 

Representative Mary Bentley If I'd just had a phone call at 8:00 this morning, I could have had an answer for you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Wardlaw, You're recognized.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Representative Bentley, I'm sitting here and kind of look retarded with two of these iPads, but I was trying to see from the bill last session to the bill this session, what was the big differences? Can you walk me through the differences. Because the bills are not similar at all to what I can see. So can you walk me through what this bill does different than the bill that was proposed two years ago?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I cannot.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw You cannot?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I was not the lead sponsor when Senator Sullivan brought that before. That was Representative Gonzalez. And it's been two years, and I've not looked at the last bill. I have studied the bill that I'm presenting to you today. I do know that we're making sure the veterans are not included.  

That was an issue last time and they were included last time. And also there was a criminal penalty in that. Criminal penalty was taken out of this based on some issues that Senator Hagar brought to me. And I made that amendment before we brought the bill to you today. But I apologize, I was not the lead sponsor on it, Representative Wardlaw, so I cannot tell you. I've just studied SB 3 to be prepared for today. I'm sorry.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw So if you follow me in your bill to page 12. Mr. Chair, if I could have some latitude?

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway You're recognized, of course.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Line 15. It goes into injunctive relief and it talks about the court costs and attorney fees. And if you could kind of explain to me what line 17 through 19 actually means. It says if the court may not award court costs, then, are you saying that they can go to the Claims Commission to get their attorney fees back if they lose? Or what does that mean?

 

Representative Mary Bentley They may go to them. It doesn't mean they're going to get awarded anything, but they may go to. That's how I read it. I'm not a lawyer, so I will get some lawyers to verify that. Again, I'm not a lawyer. But that says to me, again, once people go, it doesn't mean they get awarded it. They can go before the Claims Commission because it's a state agency. So that's how I read it, and that's how we adjusted it in this.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw I'm trying to understand why the importance of putting that in the bill. Can you walk me through where that came from?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Maybe people's concerns that the state agency is immune and will make sure that people can get injunctive relief from the state? Again, I'm guessing because I'm not a lawyer. But that's how I read it.

 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right, Representative Ray, you're recognized.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bentley, I guess my question sort of piggybacks on some of the things that Representative Mayberry was alluding to. A lot of the sections of this bill are just repealing various reporting requirements of some kind. You know, section five, for example, was the one she referenced regarding teacher or teacher and administrator recruitment and retention.

 I would imagine that most school districts want to recruit teachers and retain teachers, regardless of what race they are, right? They're looking for the best qualified teachers. A lot of these sections that are being repealed say, you know, the district shall prepare a report. Does repealing the requirement, is there anything that would prevent them from continuing to develop a recruiting and retention report or a plan for all of their employees?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Absolutely not. I know that you and I have been in meetings together with our superintendents and small districts that are really struggling to recruit and retain. I don't think I have ever attended a meeting where the superintendents not talked about that, and how what they're doing is retaining folks. All right. 

So we've got some schools that have went to a four day school district, a four day week, and that's really helped them with retention plans. So they're looking at years ahead and what the retention is going to be and how they're going to keep people there, because they know that retaining good teachers is vitally important for the education of their students. So I would say this precludes them, not at all. It may remove some cumbersome reports so they can spend their time actually recruiting. I would say that.

 

Representative David Ray Okay. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Hawk, you're recognized.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bentley, I'm going to take you to page nine, line 23, and it's regarding the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. And the Division of Higher Education shall jointly promulgate rules necessary for the proper administration of the critical needs. 

It takes out the minority teacher scholarship program. I guess my question is, I've heard from testimony today that we are not eliminating scholarships, but we are using it for critical needs. So you can tell me that the rules are still going to be promulgated. This scholarship is still going to be intact. There's still going to be a committee in place to be able to assign the scholarship. You're just changing the title of the scholarship?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Correct.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Okay. Thank you.

 

Representative Mary Bentley And I think it's vitally important that we help those critical need areas. I think all of us want to vitally affect and take our money and use it wisely. I think our  constituents expect us to make use of our tax dollars wisely and effectively, and I want us to do that. I have some very critical need areas in my district I want to make sure that are taken care of. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ennett, you're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett This is in regards to section five. Have we solved the problem of teacher recruitment and retention in only three years?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Not at all. This bill is not saying that. Again, as Representative Ray was saying,  my superintendents are continually making sure they can retain good teachers and doing what they can to make it happen. That's why a number of them went to a four day week so they can. And they've seen a great retention with doing that. 

So I think superintendents are constantly going to see how they can retain the best and the brightest teachers they've got there. That's why we did the increase in the LEARNS, to have $50,000 to greatly help my small school districts who could not afford to pay that amount there. So it's helped them immensely. So by no means do we want to stop that.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay. And I have another question.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway You're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett So in the Senate committee meeting, another senator mentioned about the need to have black male teachers in certain areas of the state. So if this passes, how would that impact that population? Because that's a real issue.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think that we should do everything we can. I would hope that people in the community would do what they can to support black men that are going education, help them with scholarships. We're not going to fix everything with legislation, right? I want us to do everything that we can. And I think affecting things with critical needs will address that. I don't think it diminishes that one bit, actually.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Collins, you're recognized.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to just ask a little bit more about why you put veterans back in this bill. So tell me why there's a difference of preferential program supporting veterans, which I think is a good thing that should be done. I understand that. Why is it okay to not treat all people the same when it comes to veterans? But it is for different groups.

 

Representative Mary Bentley We have veterans that are black, white, Hispanic, every minority. You can think of women, male because veterans are a solid group and they thy cover every type of Arkansan out there. That's why. And they've also served their nation and put their life on the line and paid a big price. They actually, when they sign up, put their life on the line. And I think they deserve every respect that we can give to veterans.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Okay. Do you think that black and women and other groups are not solid groups? Help me understand what that is.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I didn't say that. I said veterans comprise every type of minority and every ethnicity across the state. They're a solid group. Just like I would say teachers, there's teachers of every ethnicity and every race. And so it's a solid group. It is not just picking at one section, not preferring one race, sex. That's what the bill does, stops preferential treatment based on sex or race.

 

Representative Andrew Collins I guess I don't understand why the overlapping aspect is different from any other group. There are black Arkansans who are veterans and who are not veterans, who are women and who are not women. So I don't really understand why that answer explains anything.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I'm sorry. That's my answer.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Okay. Another question I have for you is in section two. This is unrelated. It talks about issuing permits by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division. And it talks about how the existing language says that ABC shall consider lack of diversity in ownership and financial interests in the geographic area at issue. Do you realize that this is diversity in ownership is not talking about racial diversity? This is about not allowing families to control permits in a certain area.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I did reach out to Joey Leonard on that and to make sure this does not in any way change anything we're doing with the number of liquor licenses out there. We're happy for you to reach out to Joey Leonard if you want to on that.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Well, no, it really wasn't about the number of liquor licenses out there, but I was wondering if you realize that the lack of diversity in ownership is referring to control by families and individuals that are related in a certain geographic area.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I will have to get with her and get back with you on that.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, I want to circle back. I appreciated Representative Ray's point about burdensome and Representative Mayberry's point about burdensome reporting requirements. I guess my concern is more with the language on page 11, which isn't about reporting. It's just about the prohibition of discrimination or preferential treatment by state entities. 

I agree with Representative Ray that a school is certainly welcome to come up with their own retention and recruitment plan. However, the way that I'm reading the language on page 11, any of those plans can not include what we're calling preferential treatment based on whatever race or national origin. So, again, to return to my example, I think that there are certain jobs where in public school districts in particular, but all over the state where, say, national origin is part and parcel of the ability to do the job.

In other words, if you are looking for a Marshallese liaison, you would theoretically want that employee to be Marshallese. We would want to recruit a strong pool of candidates. But under this bill, the way that I'm reading page 11, a district could not, in fact, come up with the recruitment and retention plan that even considered national origin that we would prefer somebody of one national origin over another to fulfill this job, when in fact I think it is part and parcel of the job. I guess my question for you is, do you read that language on page 11 the same way?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I would just say, I would agree to disagree with you, that I want the best and the brightest person in that position, regardless of where they're born. I want it based on their merit and what they can do. And if they're going to be a translator, they're going to have to be able to speak Marshallese. 

So to me, it's going to limit who are you going to be able to hire. So again I want the best and the brightest. I don't care where they're born and what color their skin is. We need the best people in that position, so it's not going to preclude them. If you're going to require somebody that can translate Marshallese, you're going to definitely limit who you can have in that position if you want to continue going back to that situation.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney So with all due respect, these positions require a lot more than just knowledge of language, right? There are deep cultural differences between a lot of members of these communities. For instance, I'm thinking back to during the Covid pandemic, where Marshallese liaison between whether it was schools and the community or the Department of Health and the community, played a really critical role in gaining trust. Right? It's a lot more than knowing a language. 

So I just want to reiterate that I think there are some jobs where we have to acknowledge things like national origin are part and parcel of the job, and we should be able to give preferential treatment to folks who are going to necessarily be better at the job if they have those national origins. It's critical for building trust within our communities. But I have one more question, which I have forgotten now, as soon as I opened my mount. 

No, I wanted to go back to your point. You mentioned that you think that, you know, government shouldn't fix everything. And certainly I agree with you on that. I think when we talk about government, especially at this table, we have an idea of like, this is the government, right? A big, long, scary table with rooms full of people making decisions. But you're talking about public schools. So I guess, is it your position that public schools have no role to play in encouraging, for instance, girls specific programing?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I never said that. I think that they could have a club of girls and we should have clubs that are specifically for girls. And we could have people in the community help to donate to fund that club is what I'm saying. So that's what I was saying. I think it's great for the school to do things. I want girls sports. I'm an avid person to make sure we have girls bathrooms. I want things for girls, but also it's not our job to just to, you were talking about funding. 

So I think our funding could come from the community. I mean I'm a member of a lot of civic clubs where I help to donate to do great things our community apart from being a state legislator. So I think there's parts for the community. Again, even with Marshallese, there's parts of the community to step up and do their part and to make sure that things are being taken care. We're all, I know you are, out there listening to my community all the time, making sure that their needs are met regardless of their skin color or what origin they are.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Can you tell me in the bill where it's limited to discussions of funding? Because I'm not seeing that. I'm saying that no school should get preferential treatment. So what I'm wondering about is things like offering a classroom for this club to meet in. I mean, that is giving preferential treatment to a group based on gender. It is. I mean, I know that that's not your intent.

 

Representative Mary Bentley If we're offering the classroom to every club, then we're not doing preferential treatment. If we're saying every club, whether regardless of whether you're a boy club or a girl club or whatever you are, you can use a classroom. That's not giving preferential treatment. I think you're distorting things a little bit. And that's just my opinion.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Okay. If a school has a club and they say they have a Girls on the Run club and or they have a Girls in Stem club, that club is by virtue of being for girls giving preferential treatment to girls.

 

Representative Mary Bentley As long as the school offers them to have a Boys on the Run or Boys STEM club, they're not offering preferential treatment. We're allowing different clubs for different interests. We're not giving preferential treatment.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Okay. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ennett, you're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you. Representative Bentley, do you agree that black and white, do you agree that we have different experiences, life experiences?

 

Representative Mary Bentley No doubt.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay. So kind of piggyback to what Representative Clowney was saying, in some instances, like having a black male teacher in classrooms help certain populations. And with this bill, you're not going to give any mention to that or it's going to be against the law. Certain people have certain abilities to do things in communities that don't look like the majority. 

And so students learn better when they have somebody that look like them. And that's something that maybe you can't relate to. But that's something that as a race, as black people, we can relate to certain things. In this bill, you take away that voice. And we should be trying to make bills, we should be trying to build up our education, our population, so we can be a more diverse state. 

And with this bill, we're stepping backwards. Certain things that you as a white woman, you're not going to understand. Certain things that we understand, and we can relate to black people better than what a white person can do. So in this bill, it takes that away.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I would completely disagree with you. This bill stops--.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Again, you are disagreeing, but you don't have black experiences like we do.

 

Representative Mary Bentley I really take offense to that. I really do take offense to that. When my children were growing up in school, we had two young black boys in that class, and those two boys were in my home. They were treated-- I never was racist in my home and my parents were never racist. We didn't allow racism in our home. And those two young boys, Josh and Royce, call me mom and they still call me mom. And they still bring their kids to my house. 

I refuse to have racism in my house. Racism is going to be stopped one family at a time. Stop racism in our home. This has nothing to do with racism. Racism is something hateful and evil and I despise it. And this bill just does nothing to discriminate. It does nothing but encourage us to make sure we mentor young black men to be good teachers.

 We want good young black men to be teachers. And I really am offended by you trying to say that. We are going forward with this bill and getting rid of discrimination and outlawing discrimination. So that's where I stand.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Seeing no further committee questions, Representative Long, you're recognized.

 

Representative Wayne Long Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bentley, if I'm reading the bill correctly, this affects higher education in Arkansas, too, as far as public schools correct?

 

Representative Mary Bentley Yes, sir.

 

Representative Wayne Long And I was just reading over an article about, I guess it was in June of 23 when the Supreme Court ruled against Harvard College and University of North Carolina because they had affirmative action policies in place. So the court found that such policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, as well as title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do you think if we don't pass this law, it will open up the state of Arkansas to being sued because this appears to be settled by the Supreme Court?

 

Representative Mary Bentley I think it very well could, very well could, Representative Long, without it. And that's exactly what we're trying to do, line up with the federal law. Things are not what they were 60 years ago. And again, we've read exactly the Supreme Court case and the president's executive order on ending affirmative action. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you. All right. Seeing no further questions, we have a long list of people signed up to speak for and against the bill. Thank you, Representative Bentley, for your presentation. At this time, I would recognize Preston Clegg to speak against the bill. Once you take your seat at the end of the table, if you would state your name for the record and any group that you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Public Testimony on SB 3

Preston Clegg Good morning. My name is Preston Clegg, and I'm the pastor of Second Baptist Church in downtown Little Rock, a congregation that cares about justice and equity and inclusion. And I appreciate your time today. We have learned as a church that we do not see all the truth through our two small eyes, which is why we need a diversity of views and experiences and thoughts. This is the value that we see in DEI programs. We do not believe that DEI programs are antithetical to merit. We believe they seek to heal historical and persistent wounds so that merit has a chance. Historical, political and legal wounds demand historical, political, and legal redress before, not after, we can speak of merit and equality. There is a temptation to want to move on from all this talk of injustice and harm and inequity. I know. But it's possible to move on without really moving forward. Moving on is a way of forgetting, but moving forward demands we remember. Moving on wants to overlook historical harms whose insidious impacts persist even in this present moment. Moving forward demands we look at the harm so as to heal it. DEI work helps us move forward, not just move on. There is a temptation to say that DEI programs are just another form of oppression, pitting one group against another, but that's a misreading of our own history. DEI work seeks the same intentionality and specificity in our acts of healing that we committed in our acts of harm. For most of my life, my privilege looked for all the world to me like merit. I have worked hard, but under all my hard work, it was a current of privilege I could not see, and an inheritance of benefits that neither earned nor deserved. Those same currents swirled differently for different people. And so long as we refused to be honest about these historical currents. Privilege will continue to look like merit, and equity will be unfair. There may be a day when I work is no longer necessary. I pray for that day, but it's probably not the day when not a single black legislator that I'm aware of supports this bill, or when we're last in maternal mortality rates, or when women make $0.78 for the dollar that every man does. This is not the day when DEI work does not matter. I want you to know that I pray for you, as does our congregation, and I'm asking you to do the right and hard thing today and include in your deliberations the voices which have for too long been dismissed or ostracized. I ask you to vote no on SB 3.

 

Representative Rick Beck Thank you. Do you want to take questions?

 

Preston Clegg I can.

 

Representative Rick Beck Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Robert Steinbach to talk for the bill. Please recognize yourself, and then you're okay to go.

 

Robert Steinbach Thank you sir. Is this on? Can you hear me? My name is Robert Steinbach. I'm a law professor. I'm a columnist. I'm here in my individual capacity, of course. Bear with me. I need to change glasses. Representative Bentley did such a wonderful job presenting the bill. I thought what I would do is just fill in some of the gaps that she had mentioned might require a little bit of analysis from a lawyer, and I am that. I apologize in advance. I'm going to try to address the questions that were raised by various representatives, without recalling the specific names of most of you. One question was can we point to any statistical harm caused by preferential treatment? The answer is yes. You can look at two of my articles, one of which was cited by the US Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas for precisely that point. That article and another article highlight that when I examined for a group of law students who we examined them based on race, and we were able to realize that the bar failure rate for the African-American students for first time bar takers was double that of whites. Let that sink in. The bar failure rate for blacks was double that as for whites. Now clearly it's not a function of their race. It's a function of race based admissions that allowed students into a school that was above their level. And had they gone to a properly matched school, they would have done very well on the bar exam. This is just one statistical example of why preference systems actually often hurt those they're designed to help. I do remember that Representative Clowney mentioned a point that I know because I've spoken with her offline, and she mentioned a point that, a couple of phrases, we want to mirror our populations in, say, our teachers. We want liaisons in schools to be of the same race as the population that they are caring for. And the example, of course, that she used was the Marshallese. And then indeed when Representative Bentley focused aptly on one aspect that is language, she said, well, of course you're going to have to speak the right language. Representative Clowney said, well, it's more than just language. A point I'm sure that Representative Bentley agrees with. But think about this for a moment. Representative Clowney comments reflect her sound judgment that there are certain skills that are necessary to represent the Marshallese community. If she were to apply for that job, she would be a capable candidate at minimum. Imagine a Marshallese.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Point of order.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Recognized for point of order.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Is it appropriate for the witness to be discussing committee members in this way?

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway I think. I mean, at this point, I think he's trying to make an analogy or make a point. I've not heard anything that I would consider to be offensive or abusive. But just be aware that we typically try to avoid referring to committee members specifically. And certainly if it in any way could be deemed to be offensive or in any way avoid that.

 

Robert Steinbach Of course, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My intentions were to compliment Representative Clowney on her would be abilities to represent Marshallese. My point was that if she were to apply for a job, she would be very capable for that job. You could imagine that a Marshallese individual, without any other skills and knowledge of his own community, that could apply for that same job and under a preference based system that would only permit the application of Marshallese, that latter candidate would be the very qualified representative. That goes back to Representative Bentley's point. We need the most qualified people. Those most qualified people may indeed frequently be of that community, but to judge them first based on their race or national origin is a mistake. There is a former colleague of mine at the law school who had done a fellowship at UCLA, and he had done a fellowship on legal issues affecting the gay community. He was the the first holder of that very prestigious fellowship. And interestingly enough, he was not gay. He is not gay. Because they chose him based on his merit, based on his skill, based on his abilities. There was a question raised about gender programs in schools, amongst other areas. We need to focus on the language, as Representative Ray has often pointed out. In every bill, we need to focus on the actual language of the bill. The bill says that state government, including localities, shall not grant preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex, etc., in the following categories and the following categories only hiring, contracting and admissions. That's page 13, lines 18 through 19. That's where the preferences are prohibited. It speaks nothing about the issue of girls clubs and opportunity programs. Another representative raised the point about law that is being modified in this bill, would be modified to when this bill passes, that was originally passed in 2021. And the question was what major changes have taken place? And in fact, the representative pointed out that there was a Supreme Court decision. It's important to focus on this Supreme Court decision just a bit. The U.S. Supreme Court said that preferences are unconstitutional in higher education admissions. The logic of that opinion applies far more broadly. That only dealt with admissions because case law only deals with the case that is before the court, but the notion applies equally to hiring and contracting. And so if you think about it, all SB 3 does is catch up to what that Supreme Court opinion ultimately portends. But instead of being on the back end of history, we will be on the front of history. Ten states have passed this law already. We won't be the first. None of those states have fallen off the continent. They're doing just fine. But we will be at the vanguard. A point about the issue, why in this bill is there a commentary about veterans? Because the last time this bill was introduced as SB 71 two years ago, there was no mention of veterans. Now, to be clear, the old bill did not take away preferences for veterans either, because I just read you the section that dealt with the removal of preferences, and you heard no language from me as no language existed that removed any statutory preferences for veterans. Nonetheless, the objection had been raised two years ago, and as a consequence, this bill put into place language that made clear what was already in the last bill through implication, that veterans preferences are unaffected. Now, it strikes me that nobody objects to veteran preferences. The bill objects to other types of preferences. And the question was asked why one preference yes and other preferences no. And it's a fair question. Ultimately, a question for you all to decide, as is all of this. But as Representative Bentley pointed out, we have veterans, specific individuals who have done specific things in their lives. And as a consequence of those actions, this body has decided that they're entitled to certain preferences. You want to change your mind on that? Fine. I'm not suggesting you should, to be clear, but that's the basis for veteran preferences. The basis for race and sex preferences are merely what you're born with. And that is incongruent with what the Constitution requires, as stated by the Supreme Court and the direction that this country's going towards in having a colorblind society. There was a question about the ABC permits, the alcohol ABC Beverage Control permit, and the claim was made that the diversity reference in that language did not refer to racial and sexual diversity. I'm not sure that's right. But in any event, the subsequent language that was put in place in this bill deals specifically with competitiveness. So if there is a concern regarding ABC permits in terms of ensuring that one family doesn't own too many liquor shops, the replacement language better addresses it in any event. Oh that's it. Those are all. I apologize. That was my last point, based on the the comments and questions that were raised. And should anyone have a question, of course I'm happy to answer.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Mr. Steinbach. Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor Steinbach, can you please point me again to the language-- I just missed it-- where you said that this would not apply to any sort of clubs.

 

Robert Steinbach So page 13, lines 18 through 19.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney I think you may be looking at-- or maybe I am-- looking at--

 

Robert Steinbach Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I pulled the SB 3 off of the Senate site and Representative Bentley has made some minor changes, actually, that were raised by Representative Wardlaw, and I wanted to address those. So bear with me. Here we go. Page 11, lines 24 through 27. The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to an individual or group on the basis of race, sex, and the other factors in matters of state employment, public education or state procurement.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Okay. And I think my questions really had to do with public education, which is why I consider them falling under that section. I was just curious.

 

Robert Steinbach Thank you ma'am. I understand your point. I see.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any other questions by the committee? Representative Ennett, you're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Mr. Steinbach?

 

Robert Steinbach Yes. Yes, ma'am.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Do you agree that black and whites have different experiences, life experiences?

 

Robert Steinbach Absolutely.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay, so I guess my next question is when you said that the other states have passed this and that they're fine. How do you measure what fine is? What's the matrix there in knowing that it's fine?

 

Robert Steinbach Well, I'm not sure. Does the first part of your question bear on the second part, meaning fine--

 

Representative Denise Ennett Well, I guess what I'm asking too, what makes you an authority on these things?

 

Robert Steinbach Okay, that's a different question. I'm happy to answer that. I'm well published in these issues in legal journals. I was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. So I don't know. I think that's okay in terms of authority.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay. And so I guess my question would be, do you agree that blacks and whites have different experiences in life?

 

Robert Steinbach I think the short answer is yes. But if I may just expand slightly, and that is I think we can refer to populations in general and say that populations have different experiences overall as a collective. And that's why in sociology we refer to different groups. But I think when it comes to hiring, contracting, education, we always look at the individual and that's what we need to look at. So yes, I think on average, as Representative Clowney aptly pointed out, you're more likely if you're hiring a liaison for the Marshallese community to wind up hiring someone from the Marshallese community because of those differences and experiences. But pre determining that is what this law would prohibit.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Okay. And I have another question. So when you said the other states that have passed this yes are doing fine. How do we measure what fine is? What metrics are, what  are we basing this on?

 

Robert Steinbach Well, my focus, albeit not exclusively, has been in the education context. And we've seen that when we remove preferences in higher education, we don't wind up with a significant change in the number of minorities attending higher education. What we see is a redistribution, and that redistribution produces a better outcome, not a worse outcome, because students are better matched to the school they attend instead of attending a school that they were given a very large preference on, and they were put into a situation in which they cannot often flourish.

 

Representative Denise Ennett And that's documented where? I mean.

 

Robert Steinbach You could see my article written with Richard Sander from UCLA, cited in the Supreme Court decision, talking about those issues. I'm trying to remember precisely the title in it, and I can't. It was published in the Journal of Legal Education two years ago or so, a year ago, something like that. I can happily get you a copy if you like.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you.

 

Robert Steinbach Yes, ma'am.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Mr. Steinbach, I have a question. You mentioned the ten other states. Can you give us a list of what those states are?

 

Robert Steinbach Not at the moment. I can tell you that one of them-- I wish I had it with me-- one of them is California that enacted this law through plebiscite, meaning not through the legislature, but through the people, over 20 years ago. And there was an attempt actually to repeal it more recently, which failed. And as we well know, of course, California is a very left leaning state. And yet the people of California enacted this. And  it remains the law notwithstanding an attempt by the legislature which is more liberal than is the the populace to claw it back. But I'm afraid I don't have that list in front of me, and I would do no justice to it by trying to guess.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. One of the points that's been brought up is basically the historical perspective on how different groups have been affected over the course of American history. I think it goes without saying what some of those examples are. How do you square that, given the history of how certain groups in this country have been treated as recently as the 1960s. We didn't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wasn't really in the grand scheme of things that long ago. So how do you square what you're trying to do today, given the history of our country. I'd like to hear your response. Thank you.

 

Robert Steinbach Yes, Mr. chairman, thank you for the question. So, of course, there hasn't been hundreds of years of discrimination. There have been thousands of years of discrimination. And the evolution of humankind goes in large leaps and small leaps. And it's much like technology, the years of the lack of technology are huge. And the time in which technology has improved our lives is relatively short. So that's all to say that in the 60s, we had truly a diverse, separate, as Representative Bentley pointed out, populations black and white. And we did two things. One, we passed the Civil Rights Act. And Arkansas has a state version, of course, of that as well, which prohibits discriminatory behavior. And in addition, President Johnson put into place the executive order, which somewhat mirrored one created by President Kennedy a few years prior, that used that language that Representative Bentley aptly quoted about affirmatively acting. And the notion was that at the time, our populations were so disparate that we needed to, as the phrase went, put a thumb on the scale so that we could have people who are entering schools or employment or contracting, some slight benefit to offset what would be a very hard way to compare candidates. Over 60 years, that notion became what is today affirmative action. And I say that meaning it was never designed to be affirmative action, was never designed to be what it is today, which is an overwhelming benefit-- and I've seen it in my studies of higher education admissions-- an overwhelming benefit given solely based on race, now, to certain individuals who, as a function of their race may have suffered some detriment, but solely based on race. And in fact Justice Thomas references in his opinion in that Supreme Court case that I referenced, he says often these benefits are going to very wealthy minorities because it's solely race that is a factor. And so, yes, we've had hundreds, thousands of years of discrimination. In the 60s, we moved into a different environment in which we prohibited discrimination. We separately set up this preference system that was designed to be limited, minor and short term. It became large, long term and dramatic. And it's only that last part of what has transpired over the last 60 years that we are saying, it's time to end. It's time to end because 60 years is an eternity in the advancement of humankind. If you look back to where we were 60 years ago, it's like looking back to the caveman times if you were comparing technology. We have made advances that are profound in our society. And as Representative Bentley points out, it's time to look forward, not backwards. And may I just add, Representative Bentley pulled that list about the states. California, Washington State, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Idaho.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions of the committee for Mr. Steinbach? All right. Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Steinbach, for being here. We appreciate your testimony. Next, I have signed up to speak against the bill. Janey Genoccio. I hope I said that correctly.

 

Janey Genoccio Close enough. Mr. chair, if I could ask for your indulgence, I'd like to switch slots with Mr. John Kelly. He's a liquor store owner who is very confused about section two, and he also has to go hear a bill in House Rules at 1. So I want to make sure he has the opportunity to speak.

 

Robert Steinbach I don't have any objection to that. Mr. Kelly, if you would state your name for the record, identify any group you're here representing and you will be recognized to speak against the bill.

 

John Kelly Thank you. My name is John Kelly, and I am on the board of UBRA, an association of retail beverage owners. I'm from little Rock. And I want to be real brief. It's section two. And of the 470 odd lines, it's only six lines. I would just say that the critical thing to me is really it's two things. One has to do with the fact that there's an elimination and then there's an interpretation. And I believe both the three items, including the two that are eliminated, they're all statutory. And  as I understand it, I could be wrong, but statutorily that means that it's a law. And as I understand the way law moves, what is actually done is going to be based on case law. So I just want the committee to understand that there's a lot to the possibilities depending on how that is interpreted. And I just want the committee to be aware that there's opportunity for the whole dynamic of how applications are issued and how what is being considered that could be affected by this. The other thing that I would say, I'm not quite sure-- I found out about this bill last night and I'm sure there's some logical reason why it ended up in State Agencies. But it was certainly, to me, a bit of a surprise to have had something that dealt with alcohol to not go through the Rules Committee or not go through City, County, Local, and I really think that is it. I certainly don't want to take up any more time, but this is a very important discussion. But as a liquor store owner, I believe that in reading this and my interpretation of all of this is that it could have a dramatic impact on our business. And I will kind of close with saying there's a whole bunch of other bills that are coming along. 97 and 98 are mixed in. And what's being done here, in my opinion, could have dramatic impact on the industry that I am in and the industry that I represent.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Any questions of Mr. Kelly by the committee? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Kelly, for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. I'll go back to Miss Janie Genoccio. If I mispronounced that, please correct me. If you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your testimony.

 

Janey Genoccio Thank you. Good morning. My name is Janie Gennocio, and I'm the co-founder of the Arkansas Nonprofit Initiative and Arklegbilltracker.com. And I'm also here to talk about section two. We've been trying to raise the alarm about section two since it was section one of SB 71. So I want to be very clear today. Section two is a direct attack on small businesses, local communities, and the very principles of transparency and fairness that this body is supposed to uphold. Section two of SB 3 shifts the focus of liquor permit approvals from ensuring a balanced market that protects small businesses to prioritizing consumer benefits that like lower prices and convenience. What does that mean? It means large corporations, big box stores and chains will dominate the market, while small independent liquor stores are pushed out. And it means that residents will lose their voice in shaping their own neighborhoods as public input and community concerns are sidelined in the favor of corporate profits. Because I want to make it very clear to you that the benefit of competition for consumers that's referenced in this change is the benefit of competition for consumers of alcohol, not just consumers generally, only consumers of alcohol. So you are creating a preferential class in this bill with section two. But what's even more outrageous about all of this is that this provision is buried in a bill that has nothing to do with liquor. This is amending Act 2323 of 2005. I spoke to former Representative Tim C Hutchinson, the sponsor of that bill, and he very clearly told me that the intent of that, when he put diversity of ownership in there was whether it was a monopoly or not. It had nothing to do with the identity, the race or gender of the owners of the company. That is not the type of diversity that this is referring to. This section is not germane to this bill at all. So this bill was buried in a bill that has nothing to do with liquor. It's not in the title. It's not in the legislative intent. It's not being discussed in the appropriate committee. And it wasn't shared with the people who would be most impacted. As you heard, the liquor store owners didn't find out about it until last night. And this is the second run at this. They've tried this for two sessions, and this is the first time they're hearing about it. Sorry. I'm just very angry at the lack of transparency and what's being done to the people of the state of Arkansas here. This isn't about good policy. This is about sneaking something in without scrutiny, without accountability, and without debate. So the committee has a choice today. You can vote for backroom deals, corporate favoritism, and the erosion of local control. Or you can stand up for small businesses, for transparency and for the communities that you were elected to represent. I urge you to vote no on SB 3. Reject this blatant power grab from the Senate. Send a message that this kind of secrecy and disregard for the people of Arkansas will not be tolerated. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Ma'am, before you leave, we do have a question from the committee. Representative Rose, you're recognized.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was following, I feel like, most of what you were saying. I guess I kind of took issue with the accusation of lack of transparency in a bill that was publicly filed, has gone through the Senate, is in the House. It's not hidden. I just was curious if you could speak to why you believe that there's a lack of transparency.

 

Janey Genoccio Well, as I said in my testimony, alcohol is never referred to in the title or the legislative intent. Senator Sullivan has said repeatedly that this bill is about education, employment and procurement. Liquor permitting has nothing to do with any of those. He has refused to discuss section one when it was-- section I'm sorry, section two. When it was section one of SB 71, it went through the entire process. It was never discussed or explained to any of the bodies. It was never discussed in Senate committee. It was never discussed in the well, and we specifically texted--

 

Representative Ryan Rose I hate to interrupt. I'm just talking about--

 

Janey Genoccio I'm just telling you.

 

Representative Ryan Rose I'm asking about SB 3.

 

Janey Genoccio I'm telling you about SB 3. It is not in the bill title. It's not in the legislation.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not argue.

 

Janey Genoccio Okay. I'm sorry, but--.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway No, no, no, no, no, no.

 

Janey Genoccio Okay, I apologize.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Just everybody, calm down.

 

Janey Genoccio We texted Senator Sullivan directly and asked to explain the bill, and he said that he was going to leave that to committee debate.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Listen, listen. Let's just not talk over one another. Be respectful. If she's answering a question, let's let her answer. And if he's asking a question, let's let him ask this question. And let's try to do this. So I'm not sure where it left off. And had you completed your answer?

 

Janey Genoccio No, I hadn't.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Okay. Go ahead.

 

Janey Genoccio And as I said he did not discuss it during the Senate committee. He did not explain it during his explanation in the Senate committee. It was not explained in the Senate. We texted him directly and said, Senator Sullivan, can you tell us about section two? He said, I'm going to leave that before the Senate committee meeting. He said I'm going to leave that to committee debate. And then he specifically did not talk about the bill. There was never any discussion of it again. And this  section is not being routed through proper committees. If this were so, I mean, y'all have a supermajority. Why isn't this a standalone bill? Why is this buried in a bill about affirmative action? It's not about affirmative action. Why can't it be with SB 7097, where it's germane. That's about liquor permitting as well. Why is this in a bill about affirmative action? It has nothing to do with affirmative action.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right, Representative Rose, do you have another question?

 

Representative Ryan Rose I do.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Go ahead.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Is the information in section two publicly available in this bill that went through a Senate and House committee? Yes or no?

 

Janey Genoccio Yes.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

 

Representative Ryan Rose All right. Ma'am, do you have any other remarks?

 

Janey Genoccio Yes. Even though it's publicly available, the sponsor has a responsibility to explain all sections of his bill, and he has refused to do so multiple, multiple times.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Looks like we do have one more question. Representative Ray, you're recognized.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you testify to this section of the bill on the Senate side?

 

Janey Genoccio No, because we were waiting for Senator Sullivan to do the right thing and explain the bill and have a committee debate about it. And he didn't. So we're bringing it up now because we feel like y'all weren't made aware of it and that something is being passed through, flown under the radar for you legislators in the House and for the people of the state of Arkansas.

 

Representative David Ray Okay. My follow up question, and I apologize if I'm putting you in a difficult spot. I had to step out for a second and I missed what the previous person had said. I understand he was a liquor store owner. Can you summarize what he said? Because I think it was on the same point.

 

Janey Genoccio Yeah. He basically found out about this section last night when I told him about it.

 

Representative David Ray That's all he said?

 

Janey Genoccio Well, and that he had grave concerns about what this would do to yhe industry.

 

Representative David Ray What were his concerns?

 

Janey Genoccio I mean, why am I being asked to summarize somebody else's testimony? I'm sorry.

 

Representative David Ray If you don't want to, that's fine. I said I apologize if I'm putting you in a difficult spot to summarize something someone else. If you don't want to, it's totally fine.

 

Janey Genoccio He, he, he, he reflects industry concerns that this bill was not put in the proper committee and that this is the first he's heard of it, and that he has concerns about what impact. He's afraid that it negatively impacts, but he doesn't know because nobody's told him about it.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any additional remarks?

 

Janey Genoccio Again transparency. This is not germane. You shouldn't vote for this bill.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you very much. Next, we have Hailey Schoffner to speak against the bill. Miss Schoffner, if you would identify yourself for the record and in the organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Hailey Schoffner Hi. Good morning. My name is Haley Schoffner. I'm a farmer in Jackson County, just outside of Newport, where I farmed soybeans, corn, rice and wheat. I'm here representing myself. I'm here to express my deep concern and opposition to SB 3, because I am part of a group that does receive and will continue to receive preferential treatment from the government, including in the code of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. And I understand that that code is not referenced in this bill, but I believe that my experiences are relevant to this discussion. You see, I am a young beginning farmer. There aren't that many of us in agriculture. The average age of a farmer is 58, and that's because young farmers face significant barriers in starting their own operations. They lack the resources or established credit and assets to get operational loans. And the government recognizes these barriers and writes specific language and programs to help them overcome these barriers. They recognize the importance of young farmers as the future of agriculture. So the programs that they've written are low interest loans, grants, training programs. And I cannot help but wonder if you stripped the code of this language, this specific language, and these programs, if young farmers would not be overlooked because of their lack of resources. I say this to illustrate the importance of specific language and programs that help Arkansans who, like young farmers at no fault of their own, are because of their situation or birth, forced to begin 15 feet behind the starting line. Groups like people of color, women, young people, young farmers, seniors, people with disabilities, and yes, veterans under the guise of equality. SB 3 will make it harder for these groups to succeed in careers as teachers and as public servants. Laws like this push us backward and not forward. And as a young woman farmer, I do not support efforts that stripped my neighbors of opportunities. Vote no on SB 3. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you for being here. And thank you for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Anna Beth Gorman. Miss Gorman, if you would identify yourself and any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony against the bill.

 

Anna Beth Gorman My name is Anna Beth Gorman, and I'm representing the Women's Foundation of Arkansas. I greatly appreciate your time. So it's not my intention to take up too much of it. The concept of merit has taken center stage both nationally and in our state legislature. SB 3 aims, as we've heard today, to prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, and national origin. Instead, only merit should be considered. But we believe that merit and background go hand in hand, and it is neither discriminatory or showing preferential treatment to consider someone's background, but a necessary strategy to ensure that all Arkansans have opportunities to reach their full potential. We believe that every woman and girl in Arkansas deserves a chance to be seen as a woman or girl of merit, but we also know that historically, women and girls have been excluded from opportunities that help you earn merit. Does business count? Business success count as merit? Arkansas ranks 48th in deals in capital for women entrepreneurs and 39th and women entrepreneurial success overall. Is this because women are bad at business, or still playing catch up from years of codified discrimination in the ability to establish and build credit? Does a high paying job at a competitive field count as merit? If only 15% of engineering degrees, 28% of computer science degrees, 20% of construction degrees, and 29% of agricultural degrees are held by women in Arkansas, is this because women lack the skills to succeed in these fields, or because there continues to be continues to be barriers to entry, making women feel unwelcome and that they don't belong? Does years of experience in the workforce county as merit? Most Arkansas moms are working moms, many of whom cite balancing work force participation and motherhood as one of their greatest challenges. Should women have to choose between working and being a parent? Despite these challenges and barriers, Arkansas women and girls can succeed when given access and opportunity. A Girls Who Code Club or Girls in Stem program in middle school can inspire empower girls to pursue those high paying, meaningful jobs like engineering and computer science that they haven't been introduced to before. And let's not kid here. Those are state resources encouraging participation in those clubs. A formal designation of a woman owned business can open doors for a new entrepreneur, or a farmer who lacks the capital and connections to get off the ground. A woman's mentorship program in a school district or city government can motivate and encourage working women who are struggling to balance it all. And all of these would be considered preferential treatment by Senate Bill 3 and therefore outlawed. The language is open to interpretation, as y'all have clearly discussed today. There's not been thoughtful consideration in the interim study of how to understand the unintended consequences of what we are proposing. It's precisely these opportunities that several representatives have asked about that give women and girls the chance to be seen as women of merit in our state. That's why our organization formally opposes Senate Bill 3. Our work is centered around expanding opportunity, not limiting it. Not only is Senate Bill 3 bad for individual opportunity, it's bad for our state's economic opportunity. SB 3 is written could eliminate programs that are critical to preparing women and girls for the high demand jobs that Arkansas needs to fill. This would handicap our state's ability to meet the needs of its workforce now and in the future. A recent Heartland Forward report found that Arkansas will have nearly 58,000 open Stem jobs by 2028. If the state doubles its Stem graduates by 2038, we could see an almost $4 billion economic impact, but only if we have ensured that all students, including young women, have access and are encouraged to pursue these nontraditional career pathways. Legislation like SB 3 weakens Arkansas ability to compete by diminishing our talent pool and hindering industry growth. Supporting women and girls isn't about taking opportunities away from anyone else. It's about ensuring that Arkansas has the strongest workforce possible to meet the needs of a changing economy, workforce development, and fueling our small business economy. It's one of the most pressing economic challenges Arkansas faces. Now is the time to double down on investments in our people, not dismantling programs that help them and our state grow respectfully. I'm asking the committee to vote no on Senate Bill 3.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Mrs. Gorman. Is there anyone here has any question? Anyone on the committee has any questions? Representative Rose, you're recognized.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Thank you for sharing your testimony. While you were discussing women in the workplace, workforce, Stem, I was just curious if you could speak to any industry where maybe there's a larger sampling of women in those industry. If you're advocating, if I understand correctly for opportunity for, I don't want to put words in your mouth, level playing field, even opportunity for everybody, would you advocate then to reduce women in certain career paths or in certain industries where there is a much higher sampling of women compared to men?

 

Anna Beth Gorman Thank you for that question, representative. I'm a long term advocate for women and girls. And in my world, we talk about pink collar jobs where you see a disproportionate number of women and girls represented. And there are several health care industry, banking industry, teaching industry. These are disproportionately held by women. And we actually advocate that those women in those professions get continuing education so they can actually break the ceiling. Because when you look deep into those professions, you see women serving in roles that are on the front lines, but they aren't getting paid as their male counterparts in those same roles and also in leadership positions. So yes, we actually have significant areas of industry in our country where women are disproportionately represented. I would also argue that those are those are the those are the professions that we said were critical during the pandemic, and we are forced to go back to work. But they are not proportionately represented when it comes to pay equity, or even in roles of leadership in those industries. Those are still disproportionately held by men.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway So not to get too specific into the field itself, but in the nursing industry where it's like 90%, 10% women to men? Am I understanding correctly you'd like to see that be more like 50-50?

 

Anna Beth Gorman Absolutely. Because actually too, when you see that a lot of people have argued and I agree that you want to see diversity. I'm arguing that I want to see more women in the underrepresented fields. We see women in these areas, again, pink collar jobs, but women are disproportionately paid less in those as well than their male counterparts in those same jobs.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway I think this will wrap me up on this, but as a father of daughters and a man who has sisters, women who have gone to nursing school, BSNRSNs, your position is if they have taken that, that's been their goal, they're working in that industry. You think if there's 90% of that field that are women employees in Arkansas, that that should be reduced down to 50%. And those people who went to college, that's been their dream, you think you should tell them, hey, this isn't for you. We should let more men into that career.

 

Anna Beth Gorman I want to see women flourish in all roles. I would never tell women not to pursue what they're passionate about. My own grandmother was told by her father that she could only become a teacher because women from East Texas couldn't become nurses, and that's a Stem field. So actually, sir, we advocate for women in science very regularly. Part of the programs that we sponsor with money that's raised not by the state, is to talk about nursing because there are great jobs there. So, no, I'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that in these jobs there's still disparity. And so we just really do the best that we can to show women there are lots of opportunities because for years, again, you're told there's only a few pathways in medicine. There are more than, there are more pathways in medicine. There's actually computer science in medicine. There's different ways, there's different avenues. But if you're not shown that, if you only see one example historically over and over again, you don't see the opportunities in front of you.

 

Representative Ryan Rose So just to be clear, you think 50-50 in nursing is better than 90-10, female to male?

 

Anna Beth Gorman I don't understand what that has to do with this bill.

 

Representative Ryan Rose I'm just trying to follow your line of thinking. I was just curious if you're advocating for increasing women in the workforce in other arenas, are you also advocating for parity in other fields where they're overrepresented maybe?

 

Anna Beth Gorman Sure. Absolutely. Teaching. We've heard a lot of that today about the necessary to have male teachers. Again, it would be great. I would tell you that when you look at male nurses again, you see that male nurses disproportionately reach the ranks of hospital administrators than their female nurse counterparts. And that's a problem still that my organization and advocates for women. We try to understand why in pink collar jobs that you get to a certain point and then you stop.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing none, Miss Gorman, thank you for your testimony.

 

Anna Beth Gorman Thank you all.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Daisy Onerobe. If you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your testimony.

 

Daise Onerobe All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Daisy Onerobe. I'm currently a student at Philander Smith University, and I'm here as a representative of the Young Democrats of Arkansas' Black Caucus and Women's Caucus. The supporters of this bill say they want a merit based system, that opportunities should be awarded purely on qualifications, with no consideration for race, gender or background. That sounds fair in theory, but there's a fundamental problem with this argument. Merit only works as a fair measure when the playing field is already level. And it isn't. SB 3 does not prohibit discrimination. It dismantles policies that were designed to ensure access to opportunity for those who have historically been denied it. And here's what that actually looks like in practice. At the University of Central Arkansas, the Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan was created to ensure that black, Hispanic and other underrepresented students don't just get accepted into college, but they have the support they need to stay, succeed and graduate. Minority students have a higher dropout rate, and this is not because they lack the intelligence or drive, but because they don't have access to the same resources others have to succeed even before they get to a college campus. This bill will prevent colleges and universities from being able to provide this targeted support that such students are in need of representatives before you cast your vote. I ask you to think beyond this room. If you say yes to this bill. You're not just taking away policies. You're taking away opportunities for those who have fought to reach the same rung on the ladder that others have started on, and that representatives, that will be your legacy. Vote no on SB 3 because leadership is not about comfort. Leadership is about courage. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions by the committee? All right. Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Debra Springer. Suter. Sutter. Sutler. All right. Third time's a charm. Maybe. If you would, identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Thank you.

 

Deborah Springer Sutler Thank you. I am Deborah Springer Sutler, and I am here to speak against the bill. I hate to speak behind who I just heard because she did a great job. Said some of the same things that I wanted to say today. But I first need to say that the black community of which I am a part of, we are insulted. This bill is ungodly and unjust. It is unnecessary. And actually, for Representative Bentley to use DEI in reference to the horrible crash in DC and related to diversity equity and inclusion is an insult not only for minorities, but for women and anyone else who is involved, because we don't know what happened there. So to use that is what is our always been done to use us is the problem. Why I'm against this bill because affirmative action, affirmative action is needed. It is a set of procedures that promote equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination. The purpose was intended to ensure that people are treated fairly and have access to opportunity based on their merit, not their race, gender, or other protected class. And what is the protected class? Race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability. When you talk about this bill, especially about it being a problem for other people. White people are the majority in America. The minority of black people are only 15% in Arkansas. How can we discriminate against white people? It is mathematically impossible. We are not taking any jobs from anyone. We are not taking scholarships from anyone. We are not taking anything from anybody because we get a job. We are qualified for positions just like white people are qualified. We never asked for preferential preferential treatment. We asked to be treated equally. We're the ones who were considered three fourth human. We are the ones that were considered not human and not equal. And then you talk about veterans being excluded. My husband is a veteran of the US Marine Corps for 23 years. What he puts on that Marine Corps cap.He gets all accolades. When he walks around without it, he gets not one word. He gets discriminated against just like all the other black people in our lives. He's from Mississippi. Imagine what he went through as a little boy growing up and what he went through in the Marine Corps itself being discriminated against. Do I need to remind you that Arkansas has a history of discrimination and racism? We have statutes right to the right of this Capitol to prove it. Those Little Rock nine everybody is so proud of now and the hell they went through, they deserve more than a statue. 1957 was racist. An ugly time for Arkansas, which demonstrated to the world that America continued with serious race and humane issues. People of color have always been targets in America and the current state in America. And today that we're in today just proves it. We have three types of people that we're dealing with, that this law will give a right to continue those that bully because they abuse power, selfish people who refuse to share and are uncaring and evil people who do not respect and oppress people. Two wrongs don't make a right, but staying right doesn't make it wrong. When will Arkansas mature? When will it grow up and learn? We don't need another bill. We don't need this bill. God created diversity, and he has commanded in Scripture that we must provide equity and inclusion. He says it do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'm pretty sure that most of the white people would not want to be black for a day. You wouldn't be able to handle it. But this is what I want you to do. This bill is segregation 2025. So I'm here today not only to give you some information and remind you of what we have, but also to give you a warning. Just like Moses told Pharaoh and his followers, you're not going to last. And this bill only proves that we don't need it. We need to treat people fairly and give people an opportunity. And that's why I'm against this bill.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Ms. Sutler. Before you leave the committee, were there any questions of Miss Sutler? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill Deborah Temple.

 

Deborah Temple Hello. I'm Deborah Temple. I'm here representing myself, and I'm against the bill. I agree with everything I've heard today against the bill. I think one of the things we all agree on is that nobody wants to discriminate or be discriminated against. I think equality sounds excellent. Equality without a path to achieve it is just not really the same thing. I believe that Arkansas has several laws on the books now that provide equal rights, but if people are not given the opportunities to achieve those rights, then it's not equal. Ensuring access is not a preference and it is not, it does not offer preferential treatment. It offers a path. It begins to pave the path for people who do not have those opportunities. Anna Beth mentioned that statistic about women in college, and I've got a statistic about women in businesses. Women are the fastest growing business owners, and yet women get only 15% of the loans that they apply for. They generally start smaller because they're starting with their savings. Any kind of help that they receive is not taking away from anybody else. It's just ensuring that they're able to meet those goals. We've heard about the critical needs rather than DEI, but I haven't heard critical needs defined. Really what we do, what we propose proposes that DEI meets critical needs. Currently Arkansas ranks 47th in education attainment. I just wonder if more people had a path to higher education, not just the opportunity, but a path to get there and the tools they need to support them through that process, if we could move out of the bottom 10. We are ranked fourth highest in poverty in the United States. If more businesses had the support they need to succeed and could pay higher wages, could we improve that ranking? 47% of households in Arkansas are Alice, which is asset limited, income constrained, employed. Many of them are employed in 2 or 3 jobs trying to make ends meet. If we could reach a place where we had fewer working poor, could we reduce that number? True equality to me, means more than an opportunity or availability. It means that you have real access. You have real opportunity for individuals, families, communities and regions. And I think that is brings me to a final question of I really don't understand how this bill would help achieve any of those goals. I don't understand the goals. I don't understand the statistics behind it or the goals that this bill seeks to accomplish that would reduce any of those issues that we're currently facing. And I would appreciate a vote of no. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Mrs. Temple. Looks like we have at least one question from the committee. Representative Rose, you're recognized.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. You mentioned more opportunities for higher education.  Am I interpreting that correctly? I was looking at some statistics, and I think it was in 2022, 22.2% of Arkansas women had bachelor's degrees, compared to 20.8% of men. This is from the Women's Foundation of Arkansas. So my question is, do you think that you need a greater sampling of women with bachelor's degrees over men? Or do you think that where it stands now is actually a pretty good thing?

 

Deborah Temple Well, I didn't mention women in the discussion about education. I just said that Arkansas ranks 47th, and that I think if more people had a path to higher education. I didn't say women in that. I think really assuming that everybody has the opportunity to go to college is not a good assumption, or that if they go with the same tools to succeed. I know people who have gone to college were very smart, but they couldn't make it because they weren't prepared. I know people who have not gone to college that probably should have because they were smart, but they didn't have the tools to get there. We need more people going to college and graduating. Men, women, black, white, Hispanic. We need more people going to school. If we can, if we can ensure more people have the tools that they need to take advantage of the opportunities that equality should provide, then imagine what that would do to our economy. We might be 37th in educational attainment. We might be, you know, not so high in poverty. We might drop our Alice households considerably. We need the tools to help us achieve these opportunities. And I'll just be honest, my pastor quoted a tool that I wish I had had, and that's the amount women make now compared to man. It's always been that way. So we say this is, I was, I listened to the last hearing and it was repeatedly about equal equal equal equality, equality, equality. How is earning $0.74 to a dollar or 78 or whatever it is, how is that equal? If you're merit hired and you're doing a good job, how is that equal? So to me it's not about who how many of what sex should be educated or in business or receive loans. It's that everybody should have the tools they need to get there and succeed.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway So thank you. And I think you asked a question and I don't have all the statistics. And I don't know the $0.74 or $0.78 on the dollar. I do know, I think women are in the workforce for an average of less time, predominantly due to giving birth, taking care of children, spending time at home. And so that would lend some credence if you've been in the workforce for ten years versus 20 years. The person who's been in there 20 years on average is going to make more than the person who's been in the workforce for ten years. That was just in response to the question. I guess the only other thing that I would make mention of is, I think you and I both agree. More opportunities for people to do better is great. I don't necessarily know that more people going to college is necessarily the best path. I think workforce development and trade schools, a lot of the things we're seeing from the LEARNS Act and the direction the state is going may lead to even higher paying jobs. So, and I apologize for mischaracterizing the direction of your comments on higher ed. You had spoken about women. I thought those two were married together in that. So but thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your time.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray, you're recognized. Well, we had you down as having a question. Miss Temple, thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate you being here. You're excused. Next we have Lance LaVar signed up to speak against the bill. If you would state your name and any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized for your testimony.

 

Lance LaVar Yes. My name is Lance LaVar. I'm speaking on my own behalf as a citizen. So I come to this having been employed by the Arkansas Department of Education and the office that was formerly known as the Equity Assistance Center. Having been part of the group that helped write and monitor the teacher administrator retention plan law, having taught districts about that and how to do that law throughout. And I will tell you, that is probably no reason that there is a question from the Secretary Oliva or concern is the Department of Education has basically been ignoring the legislative intent of that law for the last couple of years. They've avoided talking about diversity, equity, inclusion in there and focusing on minority people. They've even removed the minority report on colleges that are graduating and instead just reporting on everybody that's graduating each semester. We've had these discussions. And so there are a couple points that I want to hit. So I'm giving you that to know my background. I left the Department of Education in July, when the office of the Secretary of Education would no longer allow the Department of Education, and specifically my role in office, to fulfill what you have asked us to do in this bill that's being adjusted, which is to provide guidance and support to schools on their civil rights duties. And specifically, we were unable to do what was in the governor's executive order to provide guidance to the school districts on title nine. When I was not allowed to help the school districts anymore, I left and decided to do that directly on my own. I'm going to hit a couple points, and I'm more than happy to take any questions that you have. You know, it's interesting they talked about DEI and it was even mentioned at the helicopter and airplane accident that there's some accusation of that being DEI. I want to make sure you understand where this DEI from the federal government is going to. Because in that same speech, when President Trump said it was about DEI hire, he said, can you believe the FAA is hiring people with disabilities? And I heard him. Those are his words. And then he went on to disparage people with disabilities as not being able to work properly in the FAA. In the internal memos of the Defense Department, DEI adds the A, which is diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. This is the beginning of where it continues to go. And I wanted to make sure you understand that because I also do work with section 504. In disability law, the Teacher Administrator Recruitment Retention plan was very clear. Its purpose was to increase the opportunities and increase the diversity. And it's based off some specific ideas and details and statistics. You've got the majority of 96% of major employers want employees who are comfortable working with colleagues, customers and or clients from diverse cultural backgrounds. Negative effects associated with insufficient racial diversity extend to members of non minority groups. White students in particular, benefit broadly from the ethnic diverse learning context. That's the American Psychology Association studies. Students develop improved civic attitudes toward democratic participation as a result from diverse learning experiences. That's how racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students. Research and work in Arkansas. There's not a single district that does not have a minority student. Yet there are a large, a large percentage of students of districts that have no nonwhite teachers. That's why the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan was about diversity. Students do better when they are exposed to diverse groups. Another thing that's been referenced is the study that states that low income black student with one or more male black teacher between the third grade and fifth grade are 39% less likely to drop out and 29% more likely to pursue a four year degree. That law was necessary. And as the Department of Education has not fulfilled the intent of that law, we've also going to see that we have not decreased in our teacher shortage, but it has increased. And the last point I think I want to hit on this because you've heard a lot of stuff today and I want to give time for anybody that wants to ask me a question is understanding the difference between equity and equality. Simply put equality is giving. An example I give, equality is giving people a parking lot that we make sure there's enough parking spaces for everyone. Equity is ensuring that those who have struggle getting into the building have parking lots that are closer and access to ramps. Equality is saying, hey, this assignment was due on Wednesday. I know you were sick that day, but you should have found a way to turn it in. Equity is recognizing and giving that child a chance to turn it in later. Equality isn't about assuming that everything is equal to begin with. And equity is recognizing that there are barriers. Equality is saying I worked hard for this and holding to that only. Equity is acknowledging that I worked extremely hard for where I got, but recognizing that others had to work harder. That doesn't diminish my efforts, and it never has, but it helps me recognize and be humbled to God for the privileges he has blessed me with, and my responsibility to use those privileges to help others. Equity is the prodigal son's father. The equality is his brother. I am more than happy to take any questions on the teacher administrator, recruitment retention plan, or any of the other parts of the law. And that's the end of what I wanted to address immediately.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Mr. LaVar. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. LaVar for your testimony. Next we have signed up to speak against the bill, Deborah Halper. If you would state your name and any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your testimony.

 

Deborah Halbert My name is Deborah Halbert, and I'm here representing myself. I want to clarify a couple of things about affirmative action and DEI programs that have not been discussed enough. First of all, these programs are not about hiring unqualified people because of their skin color. They simply are not. They're about teaching businesses about the added value that a diverse workforce brings to the business. Several database studies are available online by heavy hitters like Deloitte, McKinsey and Harvard Business Review that have found many statistical benefits to having a diverse workforce. For example, diverse companies have a 32% increase in productivity, are 35% more profitable, and have a 68% improvement in employee retention. It is simply good business to recognize the value of a diverse workforce and management team. DEI and affirmative action programs teach businesses how a diverse workforce will benefit the business, how to expand application pools, how to foster an inclusive environment in order to increase retention, and how unconscious bias may be limiting hiring and promotions. Businesses care about the bottom line, and the data shows that diversity is a smart business move. Qualified employees with diverse backgrounds enrich a team's decision making and innovation. That is an added value that the qualified person brings to the table. Recognizing that added value is the point. My hope is that those of you who support this bill did not realize that there is a measurable benefit in diverse perspectives and life experiences. Now that you know, I urge you to vote no on SB 3. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Miss Halbert. Are there any questions by the committee for Miss Halbert? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Doctor Gail Cho. If you would, please identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing. And you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Gail Choate Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Doctor Gail Choate. I'm here representing myself, and I need to maybe not explain, because it might be obvious, but to point out that my testimony represents the breadth of my identity and my experiences. First of all, I'm here because I am a PhD. I hold a PhD in political science with specialties in political behavior and American government. I was at the Senate Bill meeting. I was also had the opportunity to listen to testimony from the floor. And one of my major concerns was that during the debates that ensued around Senate Bill 3, there was no data presented that indicated the impact of the laws that are on the books today, nor looked at the unintended consequences of this bill. You're being handed right now by staff, a white paper that I prepared for your review that addresses the role of affirmative action and DEI on our society in the areas of higher education, employment and business, along with a list of references where this information came from overall. Rather than reading this report to you word for word, I want to point out that my recommendation at this time as a scientist is that you do not have enough information about the both intended and unintended consequences of this bill and how it will impact Arkansans of all races, genders, and socioeconomic status. There are many pieces to this, and when the representative Bentley presented, she indicated that her reason for running this bill was largely in response to the president issuing an executive order repealing affirmative action. While I do not argue that that was outside of the scope of his responsibilities nor privilege, I want to point you to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution that gives power to the States. The reason it does that is because the Constitution recognizes that states have variations, and that states have a responsibility to look specifically at what is good for the citizenry within its state. Education, for example, is not a power that is afforded to the U.S. government. It is a power that is reserved to the States, and therefore, you have a responsibility to understand how laws that you enact may impact the populations that have elected you. The paper that I presented to you points out a couple of things that I would like to just make mention of. Number one, as has been testified earlier, DEI and initiatives and affirmative action are not synonymous. They are often conflated, but they are not terms that represent the same information. Affirmative action was designed to increase minority representation. Dai is designed to give equal opportunity and to create an inclusive culture. Further, I'd like to just point out that SB 3 is broad language would eliminate DEI programs which are not affirmative action, but rather efforts to create for fairer workplaces, school, and public institutions. I'm going to take off my my scientist PhD hat, and I'm going to put on my mom hat because I am also a mother. I'm also a white woman with four children. And I thought I understood, much like Representative Bentley has explained, that all children are afforded equal access and equal opportunity, and the chance to be treated the same. My oldest child is my biological child. He looks just like me. He's got green eyes and white skin. My other three children are adopted and they're black children. When those children went into the school system in a very racially diverse part of this country, I very quickly understood that the experience that they were faced with in the classroom, in the admission to extracurricular programs, in the opportunity to participate in things like magnet programs, were not afforded to them equally. Their experience even growing up in the very same home with the very same parents, were not the same for my three children. They were different. I believe very strongly as a mother and as a scientist, I present you with data that supports the idea that creating opportunity is a responsibility that we all must take. And you, as legislators in voting no on SB 3, have the opportunity to consider the opportunities available to all Arkansans. I also just want to point out one other thing that I think is important. We often think that as representatives, we can talk to our individual constituencies, and perhaps they can tell us what they need. And while I am a firm believer in representative democracy, which says that you are here to listen to the voice of the people, and in fact, that Constitution claims that it is we, the people who establish our government, oftentimes our districts, Our territories are constituencies are narrowly defined and therefore do not represent the state as a whole. I don't envy you because your job is to represent those people directly in your districts who elected you to office. But I ask you to also take on the mantle of what is good for Arkansans as a whole. Just to give you an example about the racial disparity that exists. If we were to only listen to the voices of the constituencies in Senate District 20, which is represented by the sponsors of this bill, we would be listening to an area that is 95% white, 2% Hispanic and 0.8% black. Yet if we look at Arkansas as a whole, we have a 15% black, 7% Hispanic, and 73% Arkansan. Excuse me. White. Notice how I just conflated that? That was a Freudian slip. Sorry about that. But the idea that I want to point out is that we have to look at it on a broader picture. We sometimes think that offering or removing dye, removing preferential treatment will enable all people to benefit by their merit. But I would like to point out another example when affirmative action was removed from higher education. MIT reported the results of the change in that policy and what they reported that was the removal of affirmative action reduced their black population from 15% of the student body for a specific class to 5%. The Hispanic representation went from 16% to 11% the white population. What do you think happened? It was reduced to 1%. It went from 38 to 37%. How can that be? Because the Asian American population rose from 40 to 47%. I tell you that just to point out that there are unintended consequences that you may be unaware of. I urge you to look at the white paper that I presented to you. I urge you to vote no on this bill, to allow the legislature to have the time to do the appropriate research, to understand what is truly needed by our community, and to understand the data that will support the decision and give us the best opportunity to weigh who will benefit from this legislation. If there is a benefit at all, or in fact, will it take us backwards. I thank you for your time and I welcome any questions that you might have.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you, Mrs. Choate. Any questions by the committee?

 

Gail Choate It's Dr. Choate.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Doctor. Sorry about that. Representative Ray, You're recognized.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor Choate, I guess I'm just I'm wondering about this chart that you created in your paper here on where you break down the percentages of various racial groups.

 

Gail Choate Yes, sir.

 

Representative David Ray Senate District 20.

 

Gail Choate Yes, sir.

 

Representative David Ray What is the purpose of including that?

 

Gail Choate Because I think it was important, not so much in this committee. It didn't come up, but in the Senate committee and as well as on the floor debate, there was a lot of reference to the constituencies. And in fact, today, when I was presented as well, part of the anecdotal information that was presented was from the constituencies of the sponsors of the bill. So I thought it was important for us to understand that perhaps those constituencies were not representative of the entire state.

 

Representative David Ray Okay, you're not suggesting, though, that we shouldn't listen to Senator Sullivan's perspective on this because his district is not as representative as the state as a whole? That's not what you're suggesting, right?

 

Gail Choate No, I'm not suggesting that, sir. What I am suggesting, though, is that we have the previous people that have spoken, have asked whether or not the lived experience of the black population might be different than the lived experience of the white population. And we have, I think, pretty much heard consistent, yes, there may be differences. So I think it's important for us to understand that those lived experiences may vary depending upon the overall makeup of the constituency in different areas.

 

Representative David Ray Okay. Thank you.

 

Gail Choate You're welcome. Thank you for asking.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much.

 

Gail Choate Thank you for your time.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Marcella Garcia. If you would identify yourself for the record and state any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Maricela Garcia Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Excuse me. My name is Maricela Garcia, and I'm with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. For more than 47 years, Arkansas Advocates has advocated for research driven, proven policies that have improved the lives of children and families in Arkansas. I'm not here to talk about the morality issues of SB 3. Those issues are already very clear. As an attorney, I do want to talk about how this bill is poorly written and does not do what the sponsors think that it does. It's not drafted to comply with a Supreme Court decision that deals only with affirmative action in higher education admissions and nothing else. And it doesn't go. This bill goes well beyond that. Instead, it's also not. It was not drafted to comply with any of the executive orders, because this bill is the same as SB 73, except for it adds the provisions about veterans will not be affected. The bill is going to put the state and other entities in a very precarious position. When you look at section 21, it's overly broad and it applies to not just state employment and public education and state procurement. It defines the state to include a city, a county, an institution of higher education, and a public school district, or a public special school district, or a political subdivision of a government instrumentality of the state. This means that all of those entities are subject to SB 3 because they all hire employees and procure services. This will create civil causes of actions against those entities with a very low burden, meaning most cases that would be previously thrown out now will reach a likely into the litigation phase, as opposed to a pretrial phase, meaning the costs will increase to defend against such a lawsuit. This is not about a lawsuit if it's, if the law is constitutional or not. This is the lawsuits that the bill itself is going to allow people to have when they feel that their rights have been violated. That feel makes it so that they reach easily the initial stages of the lawsuit, even if people are unable to recover attorney's fees and court costs at this stage of the, with the court, they're then referred to the commission and it says they must award the fees again. There's not a decision on whether or not they should have the fees, whether the lawsuit was valid or invalid. It says must and must means they have to do it. This is these costs are going to put cities, counties and these other entities, including state agencies, in a very serious bind. When you consider a lawsuit that costs maybe $3,000, but 100 of those in a year to these entities do not have a budget allocated for that, because the idea is that normally the state would be able to say sovereign immunity, this doesn't matter. But because we've lowered the burden so far, these people are going to get further with their case than they normally would. You can expect these suits to be anywhere from thousands of dollars to hundreds, tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how long these cases take and how they're drawn out. Not only are the agencies going to be put in constant threat of jeopardy of litigation, but again, it's an exorbitant amount of money you can expect to be impacted here. And, you know, if we consider maybe 30 of these lawsuits, we're reaching $100,000 right there. If these lawsuits are not easily disposed of, and they won't be because of the low burden, the costs easily are going to reach higher. The bill is convoluted. It puts together lots of different things under the assumption of equality, but it doesn't actually do anything, bring forward any new program or amend any program to make equality happen. So we've heard the difference of equity and inequality. But again, even though the bill says it strives for equality, it doesn't put forward anything that will in fact achieve that. It's overly broad and likely to harm not only children and families, government workers, the administrators and of government localities, counties and the state itself. And for these reasons, we would urge you to vote no on SB3. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Miss Garcia. It looks like we have some questions of the committee. Representative Clowney, You're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Just a very quick question. So the question was asked earlier, will not passing this bill put Arkansas at risk of a lawsuit because of the Supreme Court ruling? I guess my question to you is, do you see passing this bill, this overly broad bill, as you say, as putting Arkansas at a higher risk?

 

Maricela Garcia Yes.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Mayberry, You're recognized.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you, Mr. Chair. And really, it was the gentleman probably two before you that brought this up. But you kind of are mentioning the equity and equality part of this. And so I thought maybe I'd ask you even though the other gentleman brought it up, how would something like this affect a student who has a 504 plan in school? Since that's a federal 504 plan, does this change anything? Do they have the same protections in the school like he gave the specific example of, you know, extra time on a test. Does this change that in any way? Do you see that?

 

Maricela Garcia I think we see the potential because schools are more likely to be cautious in how they approach any kind of extra access, right. Because that will potentially give someone else the opportunity to say, well, I didn't get extra minutes and that was unfair. So my rights have been, my, you know, a parent can say my students rights were violated. So I, I think that what we will see is that people will self-censor and that in and of itself becomes like a bigger issue. Yes.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry Even though it is federal law that they would be under, you have concern about-- this really didn't come to me until you said that. So, I'm just looking for clarification.

 

Maricela Garcia If you follow through the end of the bill after section 21 where it talks about the lawsuits before, it talks about the lawsuits in that same section, it gives you a list of things that would exclude. It will only exclude. You can exclude certain portions of applying, complying with the bill if you might lose federal dollars. So if federal dollars are directly tied to, if you can show that the federal dollars are directly tied to that student, then you could exclude portions. However but it's, that's, it doesn't for example, give you know if, if you're complying with federal requirements, it does not say that. It says federal money.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry +Okay. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Seeing no further questions of the committee, thank you, Miss Garcia, for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill Scott Perkins. Scott Perkins. Scott Perkins. Does not seem that Mr. Perkins appears. So we'll move next. The only name listed on the sign up sheet is Willie. I'm hoping this person is here. All right. Seeing no one, we have one other person signed up to speak against the bill. Daphne Macbeth. Ms. Macbeth, if you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Daphne Macbeth I am Daphne Macbeth. I am here representing the Little Rock alumni chapter of Delta Sigma Theta sorority Incorporated. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, was founded in 1913 on the campus of Howard University to promote academic excellence, to provide support to the under-served, underserved, to educate and stimulate participation in the establishment of positive public policy. The sorority boldly confronts societal challenges through its five point programmatic thrust, including political awareness and involvement. We are committed to promoting leadership advocacy and empowerment to effect social change and public policy. Recently, Arkansas Senate bill SB 3 passed in the state agencies and governmental affairs Senate Committee, the full Senate, and moving through the legislature. The passage of SB 3 would effectively eliminate affirmative action, minority recruitment or any specialized programing that considers race, sex, color, ethnicity, or social or national origin in public schools, higher education and state agencies. We are writing to express our concern for the detrimental effects SB 3 will have on state entities such as the Arkansas Minority Health Commission and the Arkansas Mosaic Templars Cultural Center, not to mention the community at large. The Act of 19 of 912 of the, of the 1991 Arkansas General Assembly created the Arkansas Minority Health Commission, MHC. The mission of the AMHC is to ensure all Arkansans equitable access to preventative health care, and to identify ways to promote health and prevent diseases and conditions, especially among vulnerable at risk populations. Health inequities exist because of an unequal distribution of social, economic, and environmental resources across different populations, leading to systemic differences in health outcomes based on factors like race, ethnicity, income, education, and geographic location, which are often rooted in structural inequalities and systematic discrimination. Essentially some groups have significantly less access to quality health care and healthy living conditions compared to others. AMHC serves as a catalyst to ensure that all Arkansans have fair and just opportunities to be healthy and well. Arkansas continues to show examples of disparities in health outcomes for people of color. For example, a recent report released by the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families indicates that women of color in Arkansas have an increased rate of morbidity for several conditions, including stroke, diabetes, and heart disease. Black women are also at a much higher risk for maternal mortality, with 71% of maternal deaths in our state being black mothers. Arkansas Act of 1176 of 2001 established the Mosaic Templars of America Center for African-American Culture and Business Enterprise. MTCC. The MTCC is a museum that is part of the Arkansas Heritage Division. MTCC is a nationally accredited, world class department of Arkansas Heritage Museum and Cultural center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The mission of the Mosaic is to collect, preserve, interpret, and celebrate African American, African American history, culture and Community in Arkansas from 1870 to the present, and to inform and educate the public about black achievements, especially in business, politics, and the arts. In the case of MTCC, SB 3 is a direct and immediate threat to the Center's mission, accreditation, funding and partnerships. Specifically, if SB 3 passes, it poses a risk of weakening prestigious partnerships with institutions such as the Smithsonian and the loss of vital federal funding. We want to see every Arkansan thrive. We believe that MHC and MTCC make Arkansas a better place to live, work, learn, and play. SB 3 will not eliminate discrimination. In fact, it will do the opposite. If SB 3 becomes law, it will remove opportunities and protections for populations that have historically and continue to face systemic discrimination. These health and cultural initiatives cannot exist solely on the principle of equality, which is giving everyone the same thing without regard for their socio historical circumstances. Equitable opportunities must be ensured and protected. Equity is the fair and just treatment of all members of a community, while at the same time ensuring that multiple perspectives are represented. Equity requires commitment to strategic priorities, resources, respect, civility, as well as ongoing action and assessment of progress toward achieving specified goals. Therefore, in good conscience, we stand against SB 3.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you, Miss MacBeth. Are there any questions of the committee? Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here today. And with that, that concludes all of the witnesses who were signed up to speak either for or against the bill. I want to commend the committee for the excellent questions that were asked of the witness for the bill, and also those who came to speak for and against the bill, and also all those who appear today to offer your perspective about what is a very important bill. So with that, Representative Bentley, you are recognized to close for your bill.

 

SB 3 Closing, Discussion and Vote 

Representative Mary Bentley Chairman, committee, thank you for your time. It's been a long morning and I appreciate it. This is a very important bill and worthy of the time that you guys have given it. So thank you again for  being here this morning for the time that you've given. I just want to, again, just go over what exactly does SB 3 do. 

Okay. I think it's important to look back at the bill and the reason why we're bringing forth the bill. Again, the Supreme Court has declared affirmative action is illegal in higher education. So it's important that we line up with what the Supreme Court has decided. And also the president has rescinded affirmative action with his executive order on January 21st of 2025. And SB 3 is aligning with those things as well. I know there's been some concerns brought up on section two with the liquor licenses. 

I will say that I visited with Joy Leonard, and I think Joy is an outstanding lawyer, and I am really kind of insulted with folks saying that wasn't really well drafted. I think we have outstanding staff at BLR, and I think she does a great job. And actually the section there on the liquor licenses gives more protections for the smaller businesses. It doesn't take anything away. 

And I think it's very telling that the folks that were here speaking against that did not show up in the Senate committee hearing when they could have had their voices heard to Senator Sullivan, who was there presenting the bill. So anyway, I found that very insulting. Also they did not show up to voice their concern. But I did visit with Joy Leonard on that specifically and it gives those small businesses more protection, does not take any of them away with the liquor licenses. 

And as far as small farmers, does nothing to help or prohibit what our small farmers are getting, the funding they're getting. And I have been actively pursuing and helping farmers across our state, especially small farmers, and passing legislation for farm to school. And I have worked diligently and hard to make sure our small farmers can succeed. And there's nothing I would do to stop that. So this bill will do nothing and hinder what's going on with our farmers across the state. 

I want to look again. I think it's really important if we look at page 11, was Representative Mayberry's question about federal. You know this section does not stop anything with federal funding. So it's not something federal funding or implementing this will stop that. This does not do that. I think it's very important to read that. So again lines 18 and 19 on page 11, we prohibit any discrimination or preferential treatment by state entities. So I think it's important. That's what we're trying to do is eliminate discrimination. 

And this gives people more power to make sure they're not being discriminated against. And nothing in this bill will stop girls clubs or boys clubs at a school. Just allows them all to have equal access. I am, as a woman and a business owner in this state, I think that we have a great deal out there to help every business owner in our state. Again, it's about making sure those kids that need help are getting help. T

hose critical need areas in all of our districts with small kids that are in drug addicted homes who need help. We want every child in every section of the state to get the help that they need in those critical need areas. Let's give them all the help that they need. Let's end discrimination in our state. And I'm not taking lightly what happened in the state's history of segregation. It was a horrible thing. What's happened in the past was a horrible thing, and we're not ignoring that. We're just saying that was the treatment, as I think Senator Payton said it very well in his statements in the Senate end on this bill. We had a treatment for an illness and the treatment has gone too far. At some point, we're going to realize the treatment is not helping. It's making things worse. 

I'm really excited what the LEARNS Act has done to help to make sure we have extra access for our kids. It's going to do a great deal to make sure that there's opportunity for women in Stem and so many things. There's more going on now. I visited with a superintendent this past week, and what we're doing for girls in Stem, specifically with the LEARNS Act, this does not stop any of that. I think we have great access in our state. 

I'm ready to see Arkansas move forward and to make sure that every student in Arkansas has great access, and every woman in our state does as well. So thank you. With that, committee, I'd appreciate a do pass.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Bentley is closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Long, you're recognized. Representative Long has made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Collins, you're recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I won't take long. I know we're been in here a while. Respect your time. I just want to kind of drill down on this idea of merit, because merit is important to the sponsors of the bill. They've said that several times, and I appreciate that. And merit is important to those of us who oppose this bill, like me. I believe in merit, and I also understand that people don't get the opportunity to demonstrate their merit. 

And that is what so many of these programs and initiatives do, is they create the opportunity whereby someone can show that they are of merit, and they should be able to be in the room or have the position that they deserve. Years ago, I worked at a large law firm and, you know, I was just an associate. But there were partners and there were not a lot of partners of color. And so you can think about this two different ways. 

You can think, well, I guess there just weren't any partners of color who had the merit. There were no black people who deserved to be a partner at this law firm. It's a problem because first of all, it's a good high paying job. It's important for people in the community. It shows an example of someone being a high achiever, a lawyer, and shows that example within, you know, an entire community. People achieving in that community of color is important for people of all races. 

But I think that that is a simple and simplistic way of looking at merit, because you have to think about the situation that led to the appointment of partners. There were not a lot of associates of color in that firm. And why was that? Because there were not a lot of law students of color. Because there were not a lot of college students, high achieving college students at top schools of color. All downstream we see the effects of lack of opportunity. It was mentioned that California put this very controversial version of this very controversial bill in place years ago. It did. It didn't go nearly as far as this, but the Black and Latino percentage of students at UCLA and UC Berkeley plummeted by 40% in one year after it was put into effect. 

And so that means 40% fewer students who have the opportunity to again advance through the ranks. Getting into college is not the end of it. It's everything downstream from there is affected. When we don't think in a broader way about merit and about opportunity. There are other issues with the bill that have mostly been discussed, but that's the biggest one to me. Rethinking this as about opportunity rather than simply a simple, simplistic version of it. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will also keep this very short. I just think at the end of this long, thorough committee meeting where I sit, I have heard nothing concrete about how any of these initiatives have made life worse for one Arkansan. I've heard a lot of abstract arguments.

 I haven't heard anything concrete from my constituents or anything I heard today about how this is actively making life worse. What I do know is that many of these initiatives that we're about to peel back if we vote this through, have made life better. I heard a lot of that today. Not just for people who are directly impacted by these programs, but all of us who work in any workplace or any school that utilizes them. We are all made better by these initiatives. We heard that today. We heard nothing about how these harm everyday Arkansans. And so for that reason, I'm a no.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.

 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you, Mister Chair. I came in today wanting to vote for this bill. I talked to so many different people. I've sent it out to lots of different friends who I value, who I think, think like me. I prayed about this. And you know I've read this bill many times. But I can't move forward because of what one person said. And I need more time to think about it. That doesn't mean I can't get there, but the changing of the word from equity to equality in that section does bring up the idea that an IEP or a 504 student who might, and maybe someone can address this and can help me get over this little stumbling block that I'm in. 

But if someone has that IEP and they need extra time on a test, that is giving them an advantage over someone else. And that is federal law. So I'm wrestling with how to process that. And I need time to think about it. It doesn't mean that I can't get there, but I need more explanation on that. And I do know that you said look at page 11. I'm getting there. Thank you. Oh. Sorry. 

My husband is going to yell at me for crying today. It says that this section does not, and then it goes on. That's in section 21, though. And the section I'm concerned about is section three. So I don't think that would apply. I get where you were referring to, but I don't think it applies to the same thing. So again, maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but I need to feel confident that this does not inadvertently affect our students who have 504s and IEPs. 

I was planning on voting for this because as a female, I don't want a job because I'm a female. I didn't run for office and ask people to vote for me because I'm a female. I asked them to vote for me because they know I work hard in my district. They know that I have experience. They know that I listen to their concerns. And I can't inadvertently just vote for this whole big thing and have that one little thing change. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ennett, you're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't belabor this. I have a hard time with this bill. The sponsors who do not share some of the same experiences that this bill will affect. I have a hard time listening to you all saying what is best for people that don't have the same experiences. And I want to thank all my constituents and all the people in the state of Arkansas who reached out to me to vote no on this bill. 

Nobody can make me understand these things. We do live in a racial society. And until you have walked in my shoes, in the shoes of my husband who's a 25 year vet, my son who have disabilities, my mom and all the people that came before me, you cannot sit there and tell me that this is needed. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion on the floor. Do pass on Senate Bill 3. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Bentley, you passed your bill. And with that, we have several bills by Representative Ray that are still on the agenda. We're going to come back this afternoon and take up those bills. Likely 15 minutes upon adjournment. So with that, we will be adjourned until 15 minutes after adjournment. Recessed, I should say, until 15 minutes after adjournment of the House. Thank you all very much.

 

HB 1221: Specifies that ballot signatures only valid in current cycle (Passed)

Representative David Ray Nearly as long as the morning hour. What House bill 1221 does, this is a short, simple bill dealing with our state's initiative system. What it does is it simply clarifies that a ballot title that has been certified by the Attorney General and the signatures that have been collected for that ballot title are only valid during the election cycle in which they are approved and gathered, respectively. 

In other words, you couldn't get a title approved now in the year 2025 and then gather signatures for three years or four years or five years and put it on the ballot in 2028 or 2030 for that election. You would have to use it for the upcoming election, the 2026 election. This is really not a significant change in the law, because this is historically how the process has always worked customarily. There has never been an attempt to carry over signatures or ballot titles from one election cycle to the next. 

So it basically codifies a longstanding practice. There's an important reason that we should go in and do this, and that is that allowing initiatives to carry over for more than one election cycle would almost certainly result in a massive increase in mistakes, inaccurate signatures, and or downright fraud. Everybody knows that. It's just natural. Voters move from one county to another. Voters move out of state. Voters become deceased. Over time, voters become ineligible to vote for other reasons. These sorts of things happen routinely. And if you spread this process that normally takes place within a two year cycle, then you spread it out over a longer period of time, you just increase the amount of those sorts of things happening. We already have a huge, huge problem in our state with duplicate signatures. 

Allow me to explain. In 2024, I'll give you one example on the Arkansas Medical Marijuana amendment. There were 5,839 duplicate signatures. Think about that for a second. It takes just over 90,000 signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. If 5,800 of your 90,000 signatures are duplicates, that is 6.5% of the total required. 

Imagine if we had an election, and then the state Board of Election Commissioners did an audit after the election, and they found that 6.5% of the people who voted actually voted twice. Duplicate. There would be outrage all across the state. People would be saying that was an election that was rigged, and frankly, they would be right. The second thing I want to add, and that, by the way, is not particularly uncommon. 

I can give you other examples. In 2020, the redistricting amendment contained over 2,300 duplicate signatures. In 2018, the Minimum Wage Act included over 1,500 duplicate signatures. The Term Limits amendment that same cycle contained over 5,200 duplicate signatures. So this is a serious problem. The second thing I would point out is that this bill improves the ballot title review process by just limiting it to a two year cycle. 

The reason for that is the ballot title review process is very complicated, and the legal sufficiency of a title can very often hinge on the meaning of a single word or phrase. And because the General Assembly meets at a minimum once every two years, when we're down here, we pass laws. We repeal laws. We amend and change existing laws. Often we make over a thousand changes to the law in a four month period. And when you do that, if a section of the code is mentioned in a ballot title, a simple change in the law can change the entire meaning of that ballot title. 

So it's really not fair to the voters who the ballot title review process is designed to protect, because they rely on those titles being legally sufficient and not misleading. And it's also not fair, frankly, to the groups that sponsor these issues to go out and spend thousands of hours gathering signatures, spending tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars promoting an issue that could then be rendered moot by a simple change in the law, rendering their ballot title invalid. So that's essentially what the bill does. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray has explained the bill. Representative Collins, you're recognized.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you, Representative Ray. I guess all of these things that you mentioned are reasons, I would think, that groups don't try to get the signatures so early in advance. They're incentivized to not have the law change to where it invalidates what they're trying to do. They also are incentivized to not have people move so that their signatures are invalid. And they certainly are incentivized not to have duplicate signatures because those duplicates get thrown out. 

I mean, we know the numbers of duplicates because they're not counted twice. So I guess and then you mentioned at the outset that this isn't really something that happens. And I'm assuming that's because it wouldn't be in their interest to do that, something that would hurt their own interest. I guess my point with all this is since they're already incentivized not to abuse the process in this way because it actually just hurts them, why do we really need this bill?

 

Representative David Ray Sure. I guess I would make two points in response to that. The first being, I actually believe there are incentives in the law to gather duplicate signatures. All you have to look at is the cure period. The cure period provides a really perverse incentive for people to gather as many signatures as possible, no matter whether they're valid or not. Because if they reach that threshold to qualify for the cure period, they get extra time. 

It would be like if your assignment for school were due on Friday and you turned it in and you filled out 70% of the sheet. And the teacher said, well, you filled out enough, we'll give you another week to work on it. So I do believe there is an incentive in the system that leads people to gather duplicate signatures. 

But to the other reason, why is this necessary? In the last election cycle with a lot of these petition groups, and it was not one group in particular, it was many, many different groups. We saw a desire and an effort to circumvent the rules of the process in a way that we've not really seen before. And there was chatter online about groups trying to do this that I saw on social media.

 And also there were some groups that circulated petitions but did not turn them in. And I don't mind sharing with you. I fear that groups may try to take signatures that they gathered for a previous issue and pass them off on a future issue. And so I think we should do what we can to guard against that.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Oh, okay. I believe you would agree that that is already not allowed under current law. So that's a separate violation that this would not solve. But the other thing I guess I would say with this is don't you think that it disadvantages the more grassroots groups that need more time, as opposed to the highly funded outside groups that many people would say are abusing the process? The people that hurts the most are the ones who are going door to door or place to place just trying to get signatures on a petition, just the ordinary people in Arkansas.

 

Representative David Ray I don't believe so, because I believe that the ability to collect signatures for an issue is heavily dependent on the popularity of that issue. If you're collecting signatures for an idea that has broad buy in among the public, it will be very easy to gather signatures. And if you're collecting signatures for an issue that is unpopular, it will be very difficult to gather signatures. That's just my opinion.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thanks.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Hawk, you're recognized.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Ray, to kind of go off what Representative Collins just said, there's nothing in this bill preventing the people from getting signatures every time the election year comes up, right? So if the people that got it one year, the initiative dies or fails and they want to bring it back up, those same people can sign up again, can't they, to be on the initiative for signatures?

 

Representative David Ray That's absolutely right. And in fact, they could potentially run the exact same issue over again. They would just need to go get a clean ballot title approved by the Attorney General, which is the process we've had for many, many, many decades. And then they would need to go gather signatures for that.

 

Representative RJ Hawk And there's nothing preventing anybody from putting their name on. I mean, there's nothing that's going to marginalize anybody. The same people can do it like we've been doing it just from election to election.

 

Representative David Ray That's right. This is the historical custom of how the process has been utilized. I'm just codifying what has been custom for many, many decades.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you sir.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Carr, did you have a question? Okay. Seeing no further questions by the committee, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? Looks like we have at least a couple of individuals signed up to speak against the bill. Steve Grappe. Steve Grappe? All right. Thank you for being here. If you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization who you're here representing today, and then you'd be recognized for your testimony.

 

Steve Grappe Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee, for having us here. I appreciate you letting me testify. And my name is Steve Grappe, and I have an organization called Stand Up Arkansas. We're 100% grassroots. We don't get money from outside interest. Heck, we don't hardly get money inside the state of Arkansas because we get a lot of publicity saying Say No to the Boat, even though there's nothing behind it. But I just wanted to share with the members of the committee just what it takes to get one of these ballot initiatives on the ballot without being a big financial backer. I'm going to be the first person to say, Representative Ray, I'd love to work with you. 

I think we should take paid canvasing out of that. I think that that's a problem. There's a the core of what the direct democracy should be is the people holding the legislator accountable or presenting a bill that they believe in. And if we don't have the 70,000 or 92,000 or 55,000 signatures we need, it shouldn't get on the ballot. Because it really comes down to what the pure reason for doing it is. When the LEARNS Act came up, it was signed into law, and the following Sunday night, like four days later, we held a zoom call and asked anybody that wanted to organize against this for a referendum. 

And with very little notice, we had 85 people, mostly teachers on that call, and we decided to do it the right way, or at least what we interpreted to be as the right way. And when we looked at the Constitution, I passed out some some things that we're worried about. And in the Constitution, I know you all know it. So I'm not trying to like down talk, but I do want to read a couple of lines. Article one right out of the gate says the legislative power of the people of this state shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of the state House of Representatives. And I looked up what vested means. 

That means we the people have the power and we give it to the General Assembly. But it goes on to say we also reserve the power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any entire act or any item of an appropriation bill. That means that it's our power. We loan it to the General Assembly, but we reserve that power for this purpose. We have the authority, not the General Assembly, in this purpose. 

And what we've seen over the last several years is this body making it more difficult for grassroots organizations to hold you accountable or to present the initiatives that we want on the table to the body. Separate us out from special interests. Million dollar invest campaigns. Talk, think about the people that are in your district. And I'm really here to talk about 1222. But 1221 is important because it's unconstitutional. The House of Representatives and the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to put more on our, make it harder for us. We've been fighting these in the courts. 

We're waiting on the Supreme Court to see it. It's just been sitting there for months and months and months. But it's tough. We formed the, 85 people formed Capes. And I'm sure y'all have all heard of Capes. And we didn't have attorneys. We couldn't get attorneys to help us because they were afraid of the retribution from the government. So we had to write the bill ourselves and then go to the Attorney General and get it rejected. I'm telling you, the first one was bad, y'all. I'm not an attorney, but we got better at it. 

And we worked and we resubmitted and resubmitted and resubmitted. But by the time it was done, we had 50 days of the 90 that we were allowed, and we still got 55,000 signatures. We did not pay one canvasser. We're not trying to duplicate the signatures. And we rallied. But most importantly, the night before turn in Sunday night, we finally got these things counted and ready to go. We thought we had the signatures, and at 3:00 in the morning we realized we were 6,700 signatures short. We only had 50 days. At 7:00, we started putting calls out to every county in the state to help us go get more signatures. And by 5:00, we had the state of Arkansas collect another 6,000 signatures and deliver them and get them validated. 

In about an eight hour period on a work day, on a Monday, and there were hundreds of people from across the state of Arkansas. That same group built a coalition. Now we have about ten attorneys that are on our board that is advisors to us. Now, we have put our organization and our grassroots in 63 of the 75 counties. And I want to share this map. This is the For Our Kids map for the education initiative that did not have one single paid person on it all volunteers. And we collected 77,000 signatures in less time than any of the other ballots because we got ours rejected more and more. 

And y'all, we didn't have money. We had less than $25,000. But there was over $2 million spent to stop us from getting the signatures. Y'all, y'all heard it. Stop the sign. The special interest is trying to stop. And if you go look at who was on that special interest, you're going to be real surprised that what government officials have tied to making, making that not get on the ballot. And some of the arguments, the cost, there is a cost to this if you're a grassroots organization. We had to print 144 page bill for 100,000 signatures. The cost on printing was $40,000 alone. There is cost. And if you're going to, and some of these small groups we know, let's say we wanted to do At-Large voting. 

You're not going to educate the public, raise the money, get the organization and get the signatures in a year and a half. You're not going to do it. You're going to have to start and you're going to have to build it out. You're going to have to be able to raise the money and build the organizations and educate the public. If you do it right, like we're trying to do it, and if you say it ends at this point and the Attorney General doesn't let us get it approved and we only have six months, then we have to start over. We're never going to get anything accomplished. Let's think about the spirit. And if you start talking about duplicate signatures, that is a, that means nothing. It's not a vote because how these things are registered is go to the Secretary of State's office. 

And once they check off that someone has signed, if there's a duplicate signature, it just doesn't get counted. And the fact that someone puts a duplicate signature isn't the groups trying to go out there and do that. We're not going, hey, sign this twice. That's up to the individuals. And I'm telling you, most of them, like, I can't remember if I signed this or not, or I can't remember if this is the one I signed four months ago from the last election. So some of those duplicate signatures are there because people are just confused or it's happening too fast or there's  disinformation. 

And the cure period. The General Assembly has already tried to attack the cure period. And that is under legal checks right now. So now we're trying to put a law but double down on a law you've already passed. It's you know, all this criteria is trying to make it more difficult for the people of Arkansas to, to gather and to organize. Y'all, it's amazing to see how many people out there are coming out of the woodworks, because they finally feel like they have a voice. There's apathy across the state of Arkansas. 

We are ranked dead last in civic Engagement. We're dead last in voter engagement. And we need to find a way to engage the citizens of Arkansas. And this is the way to do it. Yeah, we had eight different ballot initiatives going across the state of Arkansas because they felt like they weren't being heard, and now they feel like they do have a reason or a way to have their voice heard and at least have the legislator know what the will of the people is are did their own. But y'all, please, this is an unconstitutional bill.

 You're trying to put rules on something that we reserve the right. You're trying to take our power away. And I just want to know what is everybody scared of? Why don't you let us do what we're trying to do? And I appreciate the time. I'm open for questions. Most of the arguments are coming in 1222, but I'm open for any questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you. Mr. Grappe. Committee, do I see any questions of Mr. Grappe? Representative Hawk, you're recognized.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony, sir. And I do appreciate what you do. I mean, it takes a lot of work to go out and do these. You've mentioned multiple times that this is unconstitutional. Is that your opinion? Is that the AG opinion or is that your attorney's opinion?

 

Steve Grappe Well, we've talked to attorneys about it. And there's, we have, we have suits filed for that reason right now and we're waiting for them to go through. So yes, it is my opinion and the attorney's opinion, but I do have a pretty good idea that it's.

 

Representative RJ Hawk But the Supreme Court hasn't said it's unconstitutional. Okay. I just want to make sure on that.

 

Steve Grappe Well, and I'm sorry.

 

Representative RJ Hawk No, you're fine. And just because you said it a couple times, I wanted to make sure I make that clear.

 

Steve Grappe I think that it's going to be overturned because it's unconstitutional.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Gotcha. Okay. My next question. And once again, just staying on this bill, I know you want to talk about 22, and we'll get to that in a little bit. But these are just signatures for a single ballot initiatives for a single year. When I'm looking at this just on the basis on what you guys did with Capes, you go out and get your signatures. You're not going to hold onto those signatures for the next go around, right? So when it when you go to this bill, it's just from year to year. It just seems like everything that you said it, while it  may be valid, it doesn't all apply just to this bill. Correct?

 

Steve Grappe Correct. The one thing it does, the one single thing, and there are small grassroots groups that don't have money that need to be able to say, we want this on the 28 ballot and start working on it now and start working on the legal language and getting approved by the Attorney General. They're saying it straight up out front. I've talked with the Secretary of State's office. 

The same problems that they go through right now as far as someone dying, moving, duplicates. That doesn't change if they count them right now or if they count them in 28. If someone moved, and then I've been asked also, what if they changed their mind between now and four years later? The signature doesn't say that they're for or against anything. The signature just says that they think it should be put to the vote of the people. We have people that are against and for on the signatures.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Seeing no further questions by the committee, Mr. Grappe, thank you for being here. Looks like we also have Kwami Abdul Bey signed up to speak against the bill.

 

Steve Grappe He got caught in a meeting.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway I'm sorry.

 

Steve Grappe He's not here. He got caught in a meeting.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway It's being announced that he got caught in a meeting and couldn't be here. And then we have Roan Kuta signed up to speak against the bill. If you would state your name for the committee and then any organization who you may be here representing, and you're recognized to present your testimony.

 

Roan Kuta Hello, Mr. chair. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak today. My name is Ron Kuta. I'm representing myself. I have been affiliated with numerous organizations tasked with collecting these signatures. I'm also part of a few different activist groups at my school. I go to Central and I am currently a senior, but I've been asked many times to say that I do not represent the school. I only represent myself. So I'd like to begin by talking about my experience voting for the first time. 

This November was my first time voting. I turned 18 over the summer, and I remember walking into the voting booth and not being sure exactly what to do. And the people there were very, very helpful, and they made sure that I got my ID out. They made sure that I was registered. They made sure of all of these things. And as soon as I sat down to fill out my ballot, I remember going through the ballot with relative ease, knowing who the people are. I am quite involved with the people who were on the ballot, so I know who is who. 

But I do remember there was one moment voting that evokes the most emotion for me, and it was the moment where I got to the ballot signatures portion of the ballot and or the ballot petition part of the ballot. And the reason it evoked so much emotion in me is because over the summer, I had actually spent my summer collecting signatures for all six major ballot petitions across the state of Arkansas. I collected for the pink tax, I collected for the Educational Rights Amendment, I collected for the marijuana reform, I collected for the Freedom of Information Act, and I collected for the Abortion Rights Protection Amendment. 

And when I got to that portion of the ballot, all I could think of was the defeat and the heartbreak that I felt when I read the news reports of these ballots being shot down by the Supreme Court, and one way or another, because the signatures gathered were declared on invalid and were completely voided. I remember the day that the report came out about the abortion amendment, and a lot of people were not very surprised by it. 

Myself, I was personally very surprised by it because I saw the numbers that we had. We had over 90,000 signatures, which is what we needed. And there was no cure period afforded for the abortion rights group. Furthermore, I remember the marijuana petition. It was actually on the ballot, and it felt so degrading to put my name next to the yes on the ballot and vote for the marijuana reform petition, knowing that my signature and that my vote would not be counted because the petition was entirely thrown out mere weeks before the election. So I'll dispense with my emotions in that respect, and I'll talk about my actual positions on this. In my experience gathering signatures, I've noticed a few things. 

The people who are affected by legislation that makes it harder to gather petitions are not the lobbying and corporate groups that fund the initiatives. They are the people who actually collect the signatures. I had experience going to the most rural and least populated parts of the state and knocking on people's doors on Sunday afternoons, trying to get them to sign different petitions so that they can exercise their civic duty. I registered like 30 people to vote. This process is grueling. 

There's sweat, there's blood, and there's tears involved. With all of the volunteers and advocates to go all across the state to collect signatures for these petitions that are then thrown out after regulations have been passed, after technicalities have been brought up. It is genuinely the most grueling and heartbreaking experience that I've had with any political movement or any political development in my entire life, and I understand that I have not lived a lot of life, but it is. It is genuinely the most heartbreaking thing that I can imagine. Now, before I present here today, I did read both bills, but not in detail.

 I listened more to Representative Ray's statements about the bill, and I also listened to Representative Hawk's defense of the bill, and I wanted to respond to a few of the points that were made. At one point, Representative Ray said that it is not fair to the sponsors of these groups that the ballot title could be rendered invalid after signatures had been collected and after funding had been dumped into the petitions. I want to begin by saying, first of all, I think that this is a very cynical and quite frankly, pretty disconnected point to make about our political system. 

We should not be emphasizing the interests of private lobbying groups. We should be emphasizing the interests of the Arkansan people and how they relate to the government that they live under, and the government that they should be able to contribute to. I understand that there's millions and millions of dollars involved with filing these petitions and trying to get them passed, but it really is the people of Arkansas who volunteer their time and their energy to try to get these issues on the ballot. 

Secondly, I would like to address that the point that there are perverse incentives to collect as many signatures as possible given the cure period. I think that this is also a profoundly disgusting sentiment. The cure period is enshrined in our Constitution. The cure period has been afforded to Arkansans for the ballot petition for as long as any of you have been alive. I have never personally had the pleasure of being around people who so deeply disdained the values that are enshrined in our state constitution, and so deeply disdain the values of democracy and the values of liberty and the values of representation within our government. 

Now, I understand that not all of you here may agree with that bill, and I sincerely hope that you take action to prevent it from passing. But I want to reiterate that this is just one bill, or 1 or 2 bills in a long string of bills that is making it harder and harder for Arkansans to participate in our democratic institutions. I think that we can do better, and I think that if we really care about the interests of the people of Arkansas, we need to prevent these bills from passing, amend them, throw them out, whatever we need to do to make sure that these bills do not have serious negative implications on how Arkansans relate to their government and how they can interact with the ballot petition initiatives. We need to do that. I will cede the rest of my time to questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you very much. Committee, are there any questions? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your comments. And is there anyone else? All right. It doesn't appear that there's anyone else signed up to speak for or against the bill. At this time, I would recognize Representative Ray to close for your bill. Representative Ray, you're recognized.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad I had a lid on that cup. During the testimony, the claim was made several times that this bill is unconstitutional. And I just want to spend a moment on that topic, because, like all of you, when I was sworn in this term and each of the terms prior to this, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the state of Arkansas. And that is an oath that I take seriously, as I am certain that each and every one of you do as well. 

The state constitution expressly allows for laws to prohibit or punish fraud and obtaining signatures and filing petitions. That's in article five, section one. It says, laws shall be enacted prohibiting and penalizing perjury, forgery, and all other felonies and other fraudulent practices in the securing of signatures or the filing of petitions. I explained in a modest amount of detail how allowing for the signature gathering process to spill over from one election cycle to the next will undoubtedly increase the number of inaccurate and or fraudulent petitions that we already have, issues that are being submitted that have a very significant number of duplicate signatures of invalid signatures. I could give you many, many examples. Furthermore, the state Supreme Court held in 2015 and the case of McDaniel versus Spencer, that they upheld a series of statutory requirements on paid signature gathering, for example, stating that they aided in the proper use of these rights, these rights being the initiative process. 

And I explained how this bill is actually in furtherance of those rights. It's in furtherance of how they are to be used properly, not improperly. There's also the 1956 case Washburn versus Hall, where the ballot title review process was challenged. It was also, people said at the time that that was unconstitutional. It was upheld for the exact same reason I just mentioned. It was in furtherance of Citizens Amendment 7 rights, and it aided in the implementation of the petition process. And so I do not view this bill as unconstitutional. And with that, I am closed for the bill. And as a member of the committee, I move do pass.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray has closed for his bill, and as a member of the committee, has made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Seeing no discussion on the motion, we have a motion pending of do pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ray. You've passed your bill. Representative Ray, you're now recognized to present House Bill 1222.

 

HB 1222: Requiring AG review ballot titles for constitutionality (Passed)

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1222. This bill amends our current statute dealing with the Attorney General's authority to review ballot titles. Yes.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray, I hate to interrupt you, but.

 

Representative David Ray We have an amendment.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway My understanding is that you have an amendment.

 

Representative David Ray That's right. There is an amendment. I'm sorry.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. I believe the amendment has been passed out. I want to give the committee just a moment to review that. It doesn't look that extensive, but. All right. Looks like everybody's had time to review the amendments. Representative, at this time, I'll recognize you to present the amendment.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment is pretty simple. It just adds a severability clause. And it also rewords the title to more adequately reflect what the bill does. And with that, I would take any questions on the amendment. If there are none, I'd move for adoption of the amendment.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any questions by the Committee on the amendment? Seeing none, Representative Ray has made a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to adopt the amendment, say aye. All those opposed. Ayes have it. The amendment has been adopted. Representative, You're recognized to present the bill as amended.

 

Representative David Ray Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was stating, under our current law, the Attorney General can only find a ballot title to be legally insufficient if it is misleading or designed in a way that is so flawed that it has the opposite effect of what it purports to do. It's very important that we have a ballot title review process. If we did not have a ballot title review process at all, it would result in a lot of chaos. 

The ballot title review process is there to protect the voter who deserves to be able to read these issues when they're on the ballot, understand what they are and have them presented in a way that is straightforward and fair. Unfortunately, I don't believe that our ballot title process, as it currently exists, is strong enough to protect the voters of our state from other forms of a very problematic ballot language. So this bill would do two things.

 First, it would give the Attorney General, when reviewing ballot titles, the authority to reject a ballot title if it were found to be in conflict with the US Constitution or with a federal statute. And the second thing the bill would do is it would prevent a sponsor from submitting more than one conflicting initiative petition at the same time, which closes an egregious loophole in the process that led to abuse of this process last session. 

So the reasons that I'm proposing this, first of all, the change on the ballot title review process, as we all know, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It supersedes anything that we pass in this chamber or anything in our state constitution, and we cannot pass anything that is enacted contrary to it, or it will be struck down. It would not benefit the voters of this state if they had to weigh in on proposals that ran contrary to the U.S. Constitution. It would not benefit the sponsors, who, as I mentioned before, spend months and months gathering signatures and raise and spend significant sums of money to advance measures that are ultimately just going to be struck down because they violate the U.S. Constitution or conflict with federal statute and the Supremacy Clause. 

As with our current law, if a sponsor feels aggrieved by the Attorney General's decision on a particular ballot title, they can always petition the Supreme Court for proper relief. That's currently in the law and is unchanged by this bill. The second change, I want to explain why I'm proposing this, preventing multiple sponsor submissions with the same text will help prevent groups from trying to subvert our ballot petition process. And I'm going to spend a minute explaining this, because it can be difficult to follow if you're not really familiar with the process. 

When a sponsor submits a ballot title for the Attorney General to review, what they are requesting is a formal opinion from the Attorney General. Many of you, I'm sure, have requested formal opinions from the Attorney General. You know, that is a very detailed legal process. It can take months and months and months to render an opinion because there's a lot of legal research involved, a lot of case law that has to be researched and it can take a long time depending on the complexity of the issue. But for these opinions, for the ballot titles that are being reviewed, the law only allows for ten days for the opinion to be rendered. 

So when someone submits a ballot title for review, the law gives it the utmost precedence. It takes precedence over your request for an opinion. It takes precedence over my request for an opinion. It is fast tracked. And ten days is the amount of time that the Attorney General has. So it's put on an expedited timeline. But what we saw last cycle was there were some groups that were unhappy that their ballot title was not approved on the first try or the second try, which is not uncommon over many attorneys general going back decades. 

And as a result, they submitted eight issues at one time, four proposals of the same constitutional amendment and four proposals of the same initiated act, all with the same underlying text. What sort of problem does this create? Keep in mind the Attorney General has ten days to render an opinion, no matter how many of these things are submitted. And so they were trying to flood the system. They were trying to flood the zone with all these proposals in order to get them approved faster. 

All that does is it waters down the ability of the Attorney General's office to thoroughly review and vet each proposal sufficiently. And I think that is a terrible and disrespectful disservice to the voters who rely on the ballot title review process and rely on that ballot title to be legally sufficient. It is the voters, after all, who this process is primarily intended to protect. So we saw an egregious abuse of the ballot title review process by some of the sponsors. I would note this has never been done before, and it's not how our system is supposed to work. It's sort of like if you were taking a test in college and instead of just writing your answer and turning and you wrote down five different answers and then left a note on the test asking the teacher to tell you which one of those answers is correct. 

That is not how the system is supposed to work. And the reason it doesn't work like that is because the courts have consistently held over the years that it is the job of the sponsor to submit an appropriately summarized measure to summarize the measure in a way that meets all of the legal requirements outlined in the law. It is not the Attorney General's responsibility to conduct pro-bono legal work on behalf of a group or an individual submitting a ballot title, and there are functional problems with this too beyond the general gaming of the system that I just outlined. 

If the Attorney General were to approve more than one of these ballot titles as legally sufficient-- in this case, they actually did-- then you would have multiple versions of the same issue that are approved to be circulated, which creates even more confusion for the voters and squanders AG resources. So that is an explanation of the bill and why I'm proposing it. And I'll be happy to try and answer any questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee. Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ray, I am-- my questions are about-- this round of questions, at least, are about the first part. The giving the AG the authority to determine a constitutional conflict. I guess my question is, can you just explain a little bit how this interacts with the power that the Supreme Court already has to review ballot titles for such a conflict?

 

Representative David Ray Well, I suppose someone could bring a challenge on a ballot title on the constitutionality of a ballot title to the Supreme Court. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that. But I think it would be beneficial for the process to have the Attorney General vet these on the front end. Because once you get really far down the line, you've gone through the trouble of the voters having to sign on these things, you go through the process of the sponsors having to exert all of this effort and energy on something. 

You just heard from an individual who had spent time gathering signatures and was very upset that it had been tossed out at the last minute. I think it's just better to get the process buttoned up on the front end before it gets-- It's unfortunate, I know for all these groups to have their issue tossed off the ballot, just a couple of weeks or a month or two before the election. Because then they've raised all that money, spent all that money, and gone through all the trouble and effort of advancing their issue only to have it be declared ineligible. So I just think it's better to deal with it on the front end.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you. I appreciate that. Just for what it's worth, from the groups that I've heard from, they are unanimously against moving this, but I appreciate your response. If the AG finds it unconstitutional, what recourse is there then for a group? Could they I mean, I guess the way I'm reading it, it says they can refile or they could appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. I worry a little bit that this is taking away power that we have already given to the Supreme Court and putting it in the hands of the AG alone. That's part of my concern.

 

Representative David Ray Yeah. The way the ballot title review process works currently is if a sponsor feels aggrieved by the Attorney General's decision, they do have the right to appeal that to the Supreme Court. And so that avenue to appeal would continue to exist.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Collins, you're recognized.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Yeah. My question is along the same lines. It really seems to me like this is a clear violation of the separation of powers. You're effectively making the Attorney General into a court interpreting constitutional law. That's not the proper role for the Attorney General. I don't know that they're suited or staffed for that. And then, I mean, you allow them to allow someone who doesn't like the decision to appeal, and that makes them sound like an appellate court. I just think this is, this is very strange and it really is a problem in my mind with the separation of powers where the courts interpret the law. The executive branch is supposed to interpret and execute the law. I'm sorry, execute the law.

 

Representative David Ray I would argue that the AG's office has ample resources to determine the constitutionality of this. We routinely ask the Attorney General to weigh in on matters of constitutionality, both in opinions and with bills and all sorts of things. So I don't think they're going to have any issue vetting ballot titles for conflicts with the Constitution.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Well, I understand. But I think that the big difference here is that in all of those other situations you're talking about, it's non-binding. This is a binding, effective law. When the Attorney General rules, they reject the ballot title. And it's not an advisory Attorney General's opinion like the the advisory Attorney General's opinions we ask for as elected officials. It's also not advisory, like when a legislator asks about the constitutionality in the opinion of the Attorney General about some proposed bill. This is actually having the force of law behind it. So that's why it's different to me. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Representative David Ray I understand your point, and I respectfully disagree.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thanks.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. I also note that we have the Attorney General's office or Representatives from the Attorney General's office in attendance. Mr. Watson, would you like to speak to Representative Collins's question? I do think it's an interesting point. I did not know you were on crutches, Mr. Watson. I would not have asked you to do that had I known,. I do think Representative Collins has an interesting question about whether or not it essentially usurps the Supreme Court's power to opine on the constitutionality of these measures by requiring the Attorney General to do that, when in fact that would be a decision for the Supreme Court. So I'd like to hear your opinion and explanation on that, if you don't mind. So if you would just state your name and of course, who you're here representing, then you're recognized.

 

Noah Watson Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Noah Watson. I'm the deputy Attorney General for the Opinions and FOIA division. So, Representative Collins, in answer to your question, as it currently is with misleading requirement, the Attorney General is interpreting the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted that term, as this body has enacted laws related to that term. And so the extension to federal law, I don't think this is an extension of the Attorney General's power. Instead, what it does is just, as Representative Ray said, brings this constitutional question to the front instead of the end of the line so that we don't have unconstitutional provisions in our Constitution after the ratification, because that would be the only time the challenge should actually arise.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Well, and thank you for that. But again, I guess I would say unless it's a court, it's not really the binding interpretation. The Supreme Court's the one that has the authority to bind with its interpretation. If it's the Attorney General's opinion, I mean, it's really just an opinion, except for in this law.

 

Noah Watson Understood. And again, as Representative Ray explained, that's what the appellate process is for. So if someone disagrees with the Attorney General's decision, they can of course go straight to the Supreme Court, right? They get special treatment and go straight to the Supreme Court under amendment seven to have the Supreme Court make that determination.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Mr. Watson, we do ask the Attorney General to opine  on the constitutionality of measures pretty routinely, do we not?

 

Noah Watson Yes.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right, fair enough. Thank you for that. Looks like we also have Representative Hawk. You're recognized.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ray, going back to the multiple initiatives being submitted, I agree we don't need to flood the system. But let's hypothetically say somebody puts one in and it gets rejected. This bill is not going to prevent them from submitting another one, correct?

 

Representative David Ray No, it would not prevent them from doing that. If you look on page two starting on around line 13, this is where this section comes into play. And it says starting on line 15, except as follows. So these are the exceptions to the multiple submissions of conflicting measures. A is if an initiative petition or referendum petition is certified under law, a sponsor may submit, after the date of the next general election. 

So they could submit it again the next cycle. Or B. B says, if an initiative, petition or referendum is rejected under this section, they may resubmit it. So if the first version of their title is rejected, they can resubmit it. That is how the process has always worked. That is always how the process has worked. This sort of novel idea of submitting eight different measures at one time was basically just, in my opinion, designed to short circuit the ten day review process. And so there are allowances in here for people to be able to resubmit ballot titles that have been rejected. Or if the election cycle passes and theirs is not adopted by the voters, they can try again.

 

Representative RJ Hawk Okay. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized.

 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if this is for Representative Ray or the AG's office, but you had talked about the Attorney General's opinion. What's the turnaround time for an opinion? So if I requested one today, how long does it take to get?

 

Noah Watson So the way that we calculate that is all opinions, so including these ten day requirements and there are some other statutory deadlines, if you look at all of those, we're at about 50 days right now for all opinions turnaround time.

 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Okay. One follow up. Would this take some sort of different priority if this were enacted or still fall under that 50 day window?

 

Noah Watson And are you speaking of ballot title opinions? So yes, whenever we receive a ballot title opinion, it goes to the front of the line because of that ten day. And it would still go to the front of the line. Here the difference would just be one sponsor would not be able to submit multiple of those that come to the front of the line at the same time. U

 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Understood. Thank you sir.

 

Representative David Ray And Representative Wooldridge, to follow up on your question, it may be prudent for me to clarify this does not prevent anyone from submitting multiple measures at the same time. All it prevents are conflicting measures. So if you want to submit a measure on taxes, a measure on education, a measure on health care, a measure on transportation, you can submit as many of these things as you want. What you can't do under this bill is submit multiple versions of the same underlying tax with different titles. Basically, trying to subvert that ten day window to get quicker approval.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Collins, you're recognized.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Thank you. And my question actually is right on that topic. So when you say conflicting measures, the definition of conflicting measures, I'm trying to wrap my head around it. One example of conflicting measures is cover the same subject matter, and you gave some examples of things that would not be the same subject matter like taxes, education, etc. 

So are you saying that two measures dealing with education, as broadly as education would be conflicting? Because education is a huge topic and it's a huge part of our budget. Obviously there are ways that measures could have nothing to do with each other functionally, but both be about education. Would those be conflicting measures?

 

Representative David Ray No, I don't think those would conflict. I think if you just to create a hypothetical, if you were to submit a ballot title on the subject of teacher pay, which is clearly education, and then a ballot title on the topic of what curriculum is required to be taught in schools, those would both be education related, but they're not conflicting in any way. They're just broadly related.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Well, that may not be conflicting in your interpretation, but by this they do cover the same subject matter, which is education, not further defined. So let me ask you another one. What about totally different curriculum measures? One dealing with certain English curriculum and one dealing with social studies curriculum. Are those conflicting measures? I'm not trying to be pedantic. I'm trying to figure out what.

 

Representative David Ray I understand, and it's a fair question. Look, I'm not the Attorney General. My opinion would be no, that those two things don't conflict. But ultimately that will be a decision that the Attorney General renders in an opinion.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Not a court?

 

Representative David Ray Well, it it could be. I mean, obviously, if the sponsor felt aggrieved, then they would have the right to petition the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court would make a determination.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Okay. And then on the same thing. C, I truly don't understand what it means. Contain different language. Why does that make something that conflicting measure with something else if the two measures contain different language?

 

Representative David Ray This definition of conflicting measure is used elsewhere in the code. And so I'm keeping the exact same definition as it exists elsewhere, so that there's not competing definitions of what is a conflicting measure.

 

Representative Andrew Collins And that's fine. And that's a good practice. But I actually just don't know what it means. So if two measures contain different language, they're considered to be conflicting.

 

Representative David Ray I'm sorry.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Two measures that contain different language are considered to be conflicting. That doesn't seem like what you would intend.

 

Representative David Ray Well, no, I'll tell you.

 

Representative Andrew Collins That is what it says.

 

Representative David Ray No, I'll tell you how this played out. You had four different measures that were constitutional amendments submitted at one time, four different measures that were initiated acts submitted at the same time. And they all had the same underlying text. But the title, as I understand it, the title varied. They submitted different variations of the title. And so that is the definition. That's what they're talking about as the definition of a conflicting measure.

 

Representative Andrew Collins Well, I understand that, but I don't think that's what this actually says. But I with what you're saying, I get, and I would be fine with that. But I don't think that's what it says here.

 

Representative David Ray All right. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I just really want to, I'm really bothered by that language too. I'm grateful to Representative Collins for pointing it out. Maybe the AG's office can weigh in here, since y'all, like, I guess we'll be the ones interpreting it. Can you put some meat on the bones of cover the same subject matter? I mean, if that is what the text says, you know, Representative Ray, I appreciate you saying that you could appeal this to a court who may find it differently. But I think it would be perfectly fair for a court to interpret this as meaning two initiatives having to do with education. I think that's completely fair under what the text says here. So can the AG's office maybe shed a little light on that?

 

Noah Watson Yes, I would start by saying that there are three elements here that have to be read together. So I take your point that cover the same subject matter might be this broad umbrella of education, but when we move on, all three of these have to be met. They also should be for the same purpose. I think that's where a lot of this is going to diverge from the examples that have been given. So you know, teacher salaries versus curriculum. These are not the same purpose within education. And then as you move down the line, that's how that would get played out.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney So what if it were say, to just to piggyback on the example of LEARNS, repealing LEARNS. We want to repeal some part of LEARNS that has to do with curriculum. Another initiative from the same group, say, wants to repeal a part of LEARNS that has to do with educational freedom accounts, right? Would those not be considered for the same general purpose to repeal parts of LEARNS?

 

Noah Watson Without seeing the specific language for any particular ballot title or ballot measure, I hesitate to opine prematurely on that.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney But I just think if we're going to be sending this language to a court to interpret if, as Representative Ray says, parties feel aggrieved, right, if they want to use their constitutional right to appeal this, surely we can come up with some tighter language that accomplishes what it is we're trying to accomplish, which I understand Representative Ray, the problem that you posed and wanting to find a solution to it. This feels entirely too broad. It feels like we are just opening the field for things to get rejected, and really not even giving the Supreme Court any language to use to say to help them meet exactly the situations that you're intending to.

 

Representative David Ray I would disagree with that, Representative Clowney. And I appreciate Mr. Watson for pointing out what I should have, which is that these are three items in a list, and it's one, two and three. So if you read them all sequentially, I think you can envision in your head the hypothetical that you may be wanting an answer on and just apply those three things. It would have to meet all three.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway And what are the three prongs again?

 

Representative David Ray It's on page two, line 30-33. It would be A, cover the same subject matter; B, are for the same general purpose; and contain different language in any part of their full text, ballot titles or popular names.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Okay, Representative Rose, You're recognized.

 

Representative Ryan Rose Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I had two questions. The first, you guys just kind of answered, which was it is all three of those. It's not any one of those three. It's all three of them included together. And the second one was we were talking about whether the Attorney General should be making these determinations or not. And I just want to make sure that I had the correct understanding that more or less, for the vast majority of time since 1943, the Arkansas Attorney General has made these decisions under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Is that correct?

 

Representative David Ray That's right. The ballot title review process has been around for a long time. It has always been housed with the office of the Attorney General, except for a two year window in which it was moved to the state Board of Election Commissioners. That was struck down by the Supreme Court, and it was moved back in the 2023 session to the AG's office.

 

Representative Ryan Rose All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does that include the AG's binding determination of whether a proposed initiative is unconstitutional?

 

Representative David Ray No. That is a new provision that's being proposed in this bill.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you. So it has not been in effect since 1940?

 

Representative David Ray Well, the review process has been in effect, but not this provision.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney I just wanted to clarify.

 

Representative David Ray Yes, you're correct.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Also states not just for review of the constitutionality with the United States Constitution, but federal statutes as well. Is that right?

 

Representative David Ray Yes. That's correct.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway So someone sent me a question about how this might affect marijuana, given federal statutes about the legality of marijuana at the federal level and proposed initiatives related to that subject. In Arkansas, anybody got any opinions about that?

 

Representative David Ray I think, like everything else, if there's a federal statute that conflicts with what's being proposed, then the Attorney General would have the ability to reject that ballot title. It would not impact any existing laws that we have. This would obviously just be for new proposals.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Very good. Any other questions by the committee? All right. Seeing no further questions by the committee, thank you, Mr. Watson. Thank you, Representative Ray. We do have individuals signed up to speak for and against the bill, maybe actually just against the bill. It appears that Mr. Grappe has signed up to also speak against this bill. So Mr. Grappr, once again, if you would identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Steve Grappe Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Grappe with Stand Up Arkansas. I'm just confused. And I really this isn't being rhetorical because I've gone through two sessions worth of processes doing this. And the first thing we have had to do is go to the Attorney General like they've done since 1940 whatever, for him to interpret whether it was good or not. And when we've met with their office, the explanation that was given to us was that they had to make sure that this would hold up in court. That's why the Attorney General looks through it, to make sure that it's going to hold up in court. And we go to collect these signatures, and they're going to stand for what it is and that the ballot title lines up. But just this last year, the marijuana petition went through that process, and they had their bill looked at multiple times by the Attorney General and eventually approved. Yet when that went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said the Attorney General was wrong. And now we're talking about federal interpretation of the law, and we let the Attorney General, and the marijuana win is the perfect example, because there is clearly multiple states with recreational marijuana. Yet if the Attorney General's opinion was that, well, this petition conflicts with federal law, you can't run it, that's the exact example that this is wrong. I don't want to keep saying unconstitutional because it hasn't been. But this is just wrong. And here's the thing, the excessive signature rejection, It makes it even harder for the grassroots volunteers to  get it together. And especially in the referendum process when you have 90 days to get something done and every ten days they reject it. So this is a threat to voting rights. It dramatically increases the likelihood of voter signatures being thrown out because you're telling them upfront a reason to challenge it in court. You're giving the opponents of these bills, the Attorney General's giving them opportunity. Now, here's the thing on these bills, and Representative Collins was talking about multiple submissions. What keeps a group of people saying, well, we're going to form eight ballot question committees, And we're all going to do what I think that's wrong. And I think what they're doing is wrong, for the record. I don't think you should do that. But what keeps somebody from organizing and eight different organizations doing something slightly different with the title? It doesn't make sense. This is a law that you're trying to pass. It isn't going to circumvent anything. If people are going to find a way around it, they're going to find a way around it. This is also a disproportionate burden on grassroots. I want you all to think about this. You're making the difficult the process more difficult. So it's going to take more money, more legal, all these interests, in order to get something even on the ballot. And that disproportionately impacts the grassroots people that are working to try to get this done. Also, this creates more legal challenges and political interference. Don't give the process something to make it more difficult. We should be working to help the citizens of Arkansas. So I have three key questions and I want everybody to ask, A, does this benefit the people of Arkansas or does it hurt the people of Arkansas? And I'm talking about don't.

 

Representative Cindy Crawford Point of order.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right, Representative Crawford, what's your point of order?

 

Representative Cindy Crawford Would you either quit hollering or get away from the microphone, please.

 

Steve Grappe Yes, ma'am.

 

Representative Cindy Crawford Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Hang on just a second. And I appreciate that point of order. Mr. Grappe, we appreciate your testimony, certainly nothing wrong with being passionate. But we can hear just fine. So just keep that in mind.

 

Steve Grappe  My apologies. Representative Crawford. What we're just trying to do is to keep government overreach from halting the process of the people getting involved in the process. We want more people involved. We want more people trying to impact the laws. We want more people trying to work with the Representatives. And what this is going to do is it's going to cause people to say it's just too hard. And this is discouraging the process, not encouraging the process. And we've talked about all the other stuff. You've heard me. I'm not going to repeat it. But please, this one really does overstep. And it makes it almost impossible for grassroots organizations to get anything passed. With that, I will open for questions and try not to be loud.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right, Representative Ennett, you're recognized.

 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you. Chairman. Thank you for testifying today. How will this impact volunteers?

 

Steve Grappe Well, we're all volunteers in our organization, so it's going to impact us in multiple ways. The first is trying to get a bill that we can use to go out and collect signatures. The other is going through this process and it's tough and it's mentally draining, emotionally draining. And then you finally get a bill. The Attorney General says, go get signatures. And we go out and get signatures. And we spent six months in the heat of August, and then it gets thrown out anyway. And then we have to wait to to resubmit. Like it it just makes that makes it more difficult for volunteers. And it gives the special interest a way to come in and be more powerful. And that's what we're trying to defeat, I think, in this.

 

Representative Denise Ennett What is your experience with the current process of title approval?

 

Steve Grappe I think that between the referendum and the For Our Kids, we have submitted 7 or 8 times to the Attorney General. And it was always something, a small interpretation that got a kickback. And again, it was an interpretation of the law that we disagreed with. I mean, we sat and had an argument about constitutional law with the Attorney General's office and Dean de Pippa, the constitutional professor at UALR law school was on our side arguing that they were not right and what they were saying was unconstitutional. So this is just an interpretation, an opinion. But now you're going to make it binding in law.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing none, Mr. Grappe, thank you for your-- oh, wait. Representative Berry, you're recognized.

 

Representative Stan Berry Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the secretary of State is the ones that verify all these signatures. They're present here. I'm just wondering if they have any comments at all that they'd like to share with the committee.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Well, I see them sitting back there. They're not exactly jumping up, but I'm going to ask them to, if they don't mind to.

 

Steve Grappe And I will say we worked with the Secretary of State's office many, many times, and they have always been the best to work with.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Once again, if you would just identify yourself for the record.

 

Leslie Bellamy I'm Leslie Bellamy. I'm the director of elections for Arkansas Secretary of state's office.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway You're recognized.

 

Leslie Bellamy I really feel on this part of the petition process, we don't really too much get involved. We'll take whatever's approved, and then we just simply verify the signatures. And that's administratively what we're designed to do. We're not  designed to approve a ballot title or the wording of the ballot measure.

 

Representative Stan Berry Yes. I just wanted to give them an opportunity if they had anything to add to it. Okay. Thank you.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Miss Bellamy, is that all you had? Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Grappe. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill Sam Watson. Mr. Watson, just identify yourself for the record and any organization you're here representing, and then you're recognized to present your testimony.

 

Sam Watson Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the committee. My name is Sam Watson. I'm the content director for For AR  People. And you may recognize the name. We were behind the Arkansas abortion amendment last year. I'll keep it short. I don't want to take up too much of your time or repeat too much what Mr. Grappe said. But we do think that this is an unconstitutional bill that would give the Attorney General a substantial amount of gatekeeping power during a process which is already quite difficult. I also want to note that Representative Ray, as he was describing in particular section one, he kept referring to the ballot title process, which is indeed the section of code that that section is altering. But the specific line that he's adding is not use the term ballot title. It says that the Attorney General will compare, quote, the text of the proposal, not the ballot title, to the United States Constitution or existing federal law. So Representative Ray's, I don't want to ascribe any, you know, negative. He may have just made that mistake, but that is a distinct difference. I actually used to work for you all in the BLR, so I'm pretty well versed in parsing through legislative language like that. And I think that that is a very significant change indeed in that section of law. I also want to note that, again, as I'm sure you all aware, again, we did not prevail at the court, but someone who was out there in the heat of July collecting signatures in that last manic push, I am so grateful that we got the chance to try to bring our ballot before the people of Arkansas. And it takes time to bring those lawsuits if we feel that we are aggrieved at the at the outset against the Attorney General up to the Supreme Court. It takes money. And grassroots organizations, as Mr. Grappe pointed out several times, don't tend to have a lot of money and don't tend to have a lot of time. And so this is really just adding a significant hurdle vested in one partisan, you know, he's elected. He runs on party grounds at the front of the process, and really just makes it much more difficult for the people to indeed rule in the state of Arkansas. So happy to take any questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Thank you, Mr. Watson. Committee, are there any questions for Mr. Watson? All right. Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Watson. Appreciate your testimony. And then last it appears we have Mr. Roan Kuta again. Sir, you're recognized. You would go ahead and identify yourself again for the record, who you're representing. And of course, then you'll be recognized to present your testimony.

 

Roan Kuta Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Roan Kuta. I am representing myself. I will try to keep my testimony shorter, more concise, and more blunt than my last. I took a few notes on this bill. I'm going to pull them out. I want to begin by saying I am relieved to see the push back on this bill, in particular, because of its implications on the process of our legal systems and the structure of our institutions, and how they are balanced within each other. I think that a lot of my main concerns with this legislation have already been addressed, but I would like to begin by at least contextualizing some of the issues that this bill is trying to address. I understand that Representative Ray thinks that it is a very big concern that numerous petitioners submitted multiple petitions of the same ballot title with the same purpose last cycle to try to circumvent the ten day process. I would like to contextualize this. Decision made on behalf of or made by the petitioners. I would like to say that this happened because the Attorney General delayed the Cape's initiative by at least 30 days before they were allowed to collect signatures for relatively benign reasons, such as the size of fonts or very, very specific verbiage. That doesn't really change the purpose of the petition that was being fronted. I would like to contextualize why these people fronted all of these petitions that were of the same purpose and of the same title. So moving on. I would like to address my big concern, and it is the possibility that this bill opens up for a complete autocratic taking over of the direct democracy system that we have in Arkansas. I understand that the Attorney General has had the ability to reject or approve of ballot titles for about 100 years now. I also understand that there are a lot of processes involved with filing these petitions. But I want to state that the idea that petitioners could easily access this avenue to repeal the decision that the Attorney General makes. I think that this notion is very, very flawed. First of all, petitioners do not always have the money to afford the attorneys that it requires to repeal the decisions of the Attorney General. And furthermore, the Attorney General could continue to reject and reject and reject these petitions and get caught up in legal processes that last longer than the election and outlast the potential for those ballots to even be, or those ballot initiatives to be on the ballot in the first place. So here I have a big question that I want to pose to everybody here. And I understand that there are a lot of conflicting opinions about this legislation. I understand that earlier, Representative Ray was grilled about what constitutes the same purpose and what constitutes the same general subject matter. I would like to open the discussion of it's not really Representatives Ray's decision in this legislation to make that determination. I would like to ask the bigger question, do we as a committee and do we as a state, want to afford the Attorney General the exclusive privilege of being able to determine what is constitutional and further, what is a conflict of purpose or what is a duplication of purpose? That is to say, I don't think that we should be letting somebody who is ostensibly part of the executive branch of the government determine these things that are generally left for the Supreme Court. I'll end with a hypothetical. I want everybody in here to imagine for a moment that Representative ray footed a different kind of legislation. We don't really have to specify what the legislation is, just anything that he was passionate about. And the Attorney General walked into this room, took the chair of the chairman, and declared Representative Ray's legislation as unconstitutional, and circumvented the process by which everybody in this room would pass that legislation. I want to ask what would be the reaction among everybody here? How would you feel about that? Would you feel that there is an abridge of your ability to pass and approve of legislation? Would you feel that it is a complete conflict of our process of government? I mean, I feel like this legislation completely demolishes the systems by which we pass laws. The whole purpose of direct democracy is letting the people of Arkansas be able to foot their own legislation and be able to pass their own legislation, and to afford the Attorney General the right to determine whether or not this is constitutional or not is essentially the exact same as affording that right to the Attorney General to determine whether or not legislation that was passed in a session is unconstitutional or not. Effectively, whether it's a direct democracy petition or whether it's something that's passed in an actual legislative session. It's still legislation. The constitutionality of it is still determined by our judicial system. So I cede the rest of my time for questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Thank you. Mr. Kuta. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Representative Ryan Rose While we may disagree on policy, I just want to say thank you for sharing your passion and experiences today. I think when I was 18 years old, there's no way I would have known what the Attorney General did or used words like ostensibly in contextualizing arguments. So just wanted to say thank you, and I guess to have a question, you said you're 18, correct?

 

Roan Kuta Yes, sir.

 

Representative Ryan Rose So thank you for your involvement. While we may disagree, you know, good for you for being involved and learning about the process.

 

Roan Kuta Thank you for your time.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Yeah, I second that. Very well stated. All right. Seeing no other individual signed up to speak for or against the bill, representative, You're recognized to close for your bill.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, committee, for your patience. I know it's been a long day. I know you've got an email saying that this legislation, this bill guts the initiative process, takes away the people's right to run an initiative. None of that is true. This bill does two simple things. It strengthens the ballot title review process. As I mentioned, this is a process that has existed for 80 years. 

We are adding the ability for the Attorney General to vet these ballot titles for constitutionality and conflicts with federal statute. And we're banning the submissions of multiple conflicting measures at one time. That has never been an issue before. That is over eight decades of ballot title review and over basically 100 years of the initiative process being in effect. That's never prohibited anyone from being able to get an issue on the ballot. 

This problem just popped up in the last two years, because groups are getting increasingly aggressive and inventing ways to circumvent the rules that have been around for a long, long time. And so this bill just addresses those two issues. And, you know, the other thing, the last thing I'll say, and I'm going to go back to the 1956 case in Washburn versus Hall, because this point of unconstitutionality keeps getting brought up. 

That Washburn versus Hall case was a case challenging the constitutionality of the Attorney General's ability to review a ballot title. And the court said, and this is a direct quote from that decision: "This statute in no way curtails the operation of amendment number seven. But it is in aid of the amendment and ensures the giving of the signer of the petition as much information as is possible." I believe this bill is congruent with that statement, and I'm closed for the bill. And as a committee member, I move to pass.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway As amended, given that there was an amendment.

 

Representative David Ray Yes. Do pass, as amended.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Representative Ray has made a motion do pass, as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Clowney, you're recognized.

 

Representative Nicole Clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be short. I know it's been a long day for all of us. I just I'm voting no. And I want to explain my two reasons why. The first, Representative Ray just read a quote that I think none of us here would agree with. It is certainly constitutional for the Attorney General to review ballot titles. What this is doing is not a small change. This is adding. This is giving the Attorney General new power than in the history of our state. He has never had, he or she has never had, which is to review a title for its constitutionality. 

That is a big change, and it's going to make a big difference. The second thing that I want to just point out is I really, really remain uncomfortable with lines 30 through 33. I understand that for something to be considered conflicting, it does have to meet all three of those requirements, has to cover the same subject matter, be for the same general purpose, and contain different language. That's a very, very low bar. I want to be clear that I'm not at all casting aspersions on any one Attorney General, certainly not our current Attorney General's ability to do this job or his intentions. 

But when we pass a bill, it's going to become law for every Attorney General from here on out. We are giving any future Attorney General, truly, what I see, I cannot read as any other way than a blank check to deny anything that is even closely related. That's what these three prongs, supposed three different prongs really do accomplish. It's very concerning to me moving forward, and that's why I'll be a no.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no further discussion on the motion, we have a motion on the floor of do pass as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ray, you have passed your bill.

 

Representative David Ray Thank you, committee.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway All right. On to the next bill. House bill 1223. Representative Ray, you're recognized.

 

HB 1223: Streamlining usage of titles of a ballot (Passed)

Representative David Ray Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last one. I will try and be as quick as possible here. House Bill 1223 deals with office holder titles being used as prefixes on the ballot. Between last session and this one, this was a topic I tried to dive into a little bit and began researching under what circumstances people could use titles and so forth. And I noticed that there was a discrepancy in the law. 

Actually BLR in some research I asked them to do found this for me where under the current law, if someone has been appointed to a district court or a circuit court position, and they've held that position for 12 months, then they can use that prefix on the ballot if they're running for a nonpartisan judicial race. But if you're an appointee to a court of Appeals position or the Supreme Court under the exact same set of circumstances, you can't use your office holder title as a prefix. 

And I'm not aware of any policy distinction for why two of the court positions would be able to use it, and the other two not. So I thought I would introduce a bill that brought some parity to how this area of the law treats the different court positions. As you can see, it's a pretty short bill and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray has explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Okay. Seeing no questions by the committee, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Ray, You're recognized to close for your bill.

 

Representative David Ray Closed for the bill and as a member of the committee, move to pass.

 

Representative Jimmy Gazaway Representative Ray has closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ray. The bill is passed. That concludes all the items that we had on our agenda for today. I believe we are now finally adjourned. Thank you all so much.