Panel approves amended mandate for Arkansas canvassers to warn petition signers of fraud crime
Sen. Kim Hammer (left), R-Benton, and Rep. Kendon Underwood (right), R-Cave Springs, present an amended bill to the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. Senate Bill 207 would require canvassers for proposed ballot measures to disclose to signers that petition fraud is a criminal offense. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
A bill that would require canvassers for ballot measures in Arkansas to disclose the criminality of petition fraud to potential signers passed a legislative committee Wednesday after being pulled down for amendments Monday.
Senate Bill 207 is one of a slew of proposed laws sponsored by Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, and Rep. Kendon Underwood, R-Cave Springs, that would alter the citizen-led initiative petition process. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows this process to change laws and the state Constitution, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Hammer and Underwood have said their proposed legislation would protect the integrity of the initiative petition process and deter fraudulent activity.
The section of Arkansas code governing initiatives and referenda designates petition fraud a Class A misdemeanor. House members pointed out Monday that the statute pertaining to fraud against the government designates petition fraud a Class D felony.
Underwood subsequently amended SB 207 to require canvassers to state that petition fraud is simply 'a criminal offense.' The House is expected to take up the amended bill Thursday.
Two people spoke against the bill Wednesday before the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
Existing state law includes a list of actions considered fraud on initiative or referendum petitions, but SB 207's mandated statement for canvassers does not include such specifics, said Christin Harper, policy director for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
'The vast majority of Arkansans already know fraud is illegal and are entering the petition process not with nefarious intentions, but with a desire to participate civically in their communities and support issues they care about,' Harper said. 'A better way to prevent fraud is to enforce current laws and to train canvassers to ask voters if they have already signed.'
Brady Shiers, database administrator with the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, said the legislation would 'have a serious chilling effect, not only for signers but also for canvassers.'
The bill would make a canvasser's failure to disclose the criminality of petition fraud liable for a Class A misdemeanor charge. Shiers called this 'a gross overreaction.'
'If I'm a volunteer with a grassroots petition campaign and I now see that accidental failure to say a few words means I can not only ruin the campaign I believe in but also end up having serious legal consequences, I'd be scared to death to even sign up to be a canvasser,' he said.
House Minority Leader Andrew Collins, D-Little Rock, expressed similar concerns about a chilling effect on participation in direct democracy. Rep. David Ray, R-Maumelle, offered a different perspective.
'Every time I've ever gone to purchase a gun and I fill out the background check form, I'm asked a series of questions… It states very clearly on the form that if I respond to any of those questions in a way that I know is inaccurate, I'm committing a felony, but that has never had a chilling effect on my intent or ability to purchase a firearm,' Ray said.
The same House committee met for nearly six hours Monday and heard much public testimony, mostly in opposition, before passing two other bills related to ballot initiatives and sponsored by Hammer and Underwood.
Senate Bill 208 would require canvassers to request a photo ID from potential signers, and Senate Bill 211 would require canvassers to file a 'true affidavit' with the secretary of state certifying they complied with the Arkansas Constitution and state laws related to canvassing, perjury, forgery and fraudulent practices in the procurement of petition signatures. Signatures submitted without the affidavit would not be counted.
Underwood amended both bills Tuesday, meaning the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs will have to pass them again. The change to SB 208 clarifies the type of photo ID the bill would require under existing state law, and the change to SB 211 would exempt signatures from disqualification due to the 'inability of a canvasser to submit an affidavit due to death or medical disability.'
Members of the public could not comment on SB 207 during Monday's meeting after it was pulled from the agenda. Committee members acknowledged that inclement weather likely prevented more speakers besides Shiers and Harper from testifying at Wednesday's meeting.
The committee considered waiting to vote on SB 207 until the next meeting Feb. 24 in order to allow more people to testify then, but a motion to do so failed despite bipartisan support.
The bill passed on a roll call vote with nine Republicans voting for it, including Ray. Five committee members voted against it: Republican Reps. Julie Mayberry of Hensley, Mark McElroy of Tillar and Jeremy Wooldridge of Marmaduke; and Collins and his fellow Little Rock Democratic Rep. Denise Ennett.
If the amended SB 207, SB 208 and SB 211 pass the House, they will return to the Senate, which they passed last week with at least 24 votes each. The bills' emergency clauses require a minimum of 24 votes, two-thirds of the Senate, and would allow them to go into effect immediately upon the governor's signature.
Hammer and Underwood are sponsoring two more initiative petition bills that received 22 Senate votes each, meaning the bills passed but their emergency clauses failed.
Senate Bill 209 would disqualify signatures collected by canvassers if the secretary of state finds 'by a preponderance of evidence' that they violated state law collecting the signatures. Senate Bill 210 would require potential signers to read the ballot title of a petition or have it read aloud to them in the presence of a canvasser. It would also make it a misdemeanor for a canvasser to accept a signature from people who have not read the ballot title or had it read aloud to them in the presence of a canvasser.
Hammer said Tuesday that he will bring the two emergency clauses back to the Senate floor Monday. Six senators were absent from the chamber Wednesday due to inclement weather.
Arkansas' elections are overseen by the secretary of state, a position Hammer is seeking in 2026. Another bill he sponsored, Senate Bill 212, would have created a law enforcement agency within the secretary of state's office that could investigate the validity of submitted documents related to elections and ballot initiatives. The bill failed in committee last week.
Bills to improve Arkansas maternal health, change ballot initiative process head to Sanders' desk
Hammer is also the Senate sponsor of two bills introduced by Ray that are currently on the governor's desk: House Bill 1221 and House Bill 1222.
HB 1221 clarifies that the certification of ballot titles for initiatives, referenda and constitutional amendments as well as the signatures collected for those measures would only be valid for the next general election.
HB 1222 expands the attorney general's existing authority to reject a proposal if it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. It would also prevent a sponsor from submitting more than one conflicting petition at the same time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.
