Four Republican members of the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs listen to discussion on Thursday, February 27, 2025. From left: committee chairman Sen. Scott Flippo of Bull Shoals, Sen. Kim Hammer of Benton, vice chairman Sen. John Payton of Wilburn and Sen. Alan Clark of Lonsdale. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
An Arkansas Senate committee again rejected a proposal to create an enforcement agency within the secretary of state’s office that could investigate the validity of submitted documents related to elections and ballot initiatives.
Senate Bill 212 previously failed in the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs on Feb. 11. Bill sponsor Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, amended the bill and presented it to the committee again Thursday.
Hammer announced in January that he will run next year for Secretary of State, the office that oversees elections.
The proposed “Document Validity Division” in SB 212 would have the power to “investigate documents and activities related to the validity and truthfulness” of petitions signed by registered voters in support of proposed ballot measures.
“A document determined by the division to contain fraud or falsity by a preponderance of the evidence shall be declared null and void for any legal purpose overseen by the Secretary of State,” the bill states.
The division would have subpoena power, and an amendment Hammer added to the bill this week would allow the agency to seek a court order to enforce a subpoena if the recipient fails to comply.
Hammer told the committee that allowing the secretary of state’s office to collect evidence and build a case against alleged petition fraud would relieve law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys of their investigatory responsibilities in these cases.
“[Secretary of State employees] are the ones who are involved in the election integrity process,” Hammer said. “…We’re not turning them loose. We’re giving them the ability to investigate.”
Despite the use of the term “law enforcement” in the bill, Secretary of State employees would not be certified law enforcement officers and therefore would not be required to adhere to the state’s official law enforcement standards, said Nathan Lee, deputy secretary of state and the office’s chief legal counsel.
Hammer is sponsoring several other bills that would alter Arkansas’ ballot initiative petition process and has said the legislation would deter fraudulent behavior.
Opponents of the bills have called them a threat to the public’s right to change laws and the state Constitution. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows direct democracy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
SB 212 again failed to garner five votes from the eight-member committee. Sen. Clarke Tucker of Little Rock, the committee’s only Democrat, continued to oppose the bill, as did committee vice chair Sen. John Payton, R-Wilburn.
“I believe in a rigorous investigation of any wrongdoing when it comes to this petitioning process,” Payton said. “I believe it should be prosecuted and it should be investigated, but I also believe that our [nation’s] founders were very concerned with separation of powers… I believe that giving every agency police powers is a violation of the principle that we would have separation of powers.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, voted for SB 212 on Feb. 11 but joined Payton and Tucker in voting against it Thursday. Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, voted against the bill Feb. 11 and was absent Thursday.
Hammer and the remaining three committee members voted for the bill, including Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, who was absent Feb. 11.
These kinds of obstructionist laws imply that some of you simply do not trust the people of Arkansas.
– Davis Hendricks, one of six speakers against Senate Bill 212
Public comment
Six members of the public spoke against SB 212, with several saying the bill lacked due process for petition signers whose signatures might be discarded by the Secretary of State.
“This particular bill increases barriers to voting, targets vulnerable populations, raises privacy and civil rights concerns and contradicts values that I represent as a social worker,” Kellie Fugere said.
Fugere described herself as politically liberal. Other witnesses described themselves as conservative, including Lorri Justice, a constituent of Hammer’s and a former Republican candidate for the Pulaski County Quorum Court.
Justice said she opposed “weaponizing state agencies” against the public and believed SB 212 would do this.
“We have President [Donald] Trump slashing our federal government, but we’re building our government and making it bigger here in the state, and I don’t like that,” Justice said, referring to recent firings of federal employees.
Joey McCutchen and Jimmie Cavin, both conservative advocates for government transparency, also said they opposed expanding state government via SB 212. McCutchen called the proposal “Orwellian” and “authoritarian.”
Cavin said he opposed giving the Secretary of State “the sole discretion” of disqualifying petition signatures “based on an opinion,” which the officeholder could use to “force their will over the people.”
“I’m absolutely against abortion, but say somebody wants to get an abortion amendment on the ballot, and let’s say the Secretary of State doesn’t want that to happen,” Cavin said. “It’s really easy to use this as a political weapon, and the same is true in reverse [if we] have a liberal secretary of state.”
A proposed constitutional amendment that would have created a limited right to abortion received more than 102,000 signatures last year, but it did not make the November ballot after the Secretary of State’s office disqualified more than 14,000 signatures on a technicality.
At the committee’s Feb. 11 meeting, supporters of Hammer’s package of bills alleged fraud and misconduct by canvassers collecting signatures for the abortion amendment.
The other two speakers against SB 212 were Carol Egan, who spoke against another of Hammer’s bills Tuesday, and Davis Hendricks, who said allegations of petition fraud are “the exception and not the rule.”
Several of Hammer’s bills might be challenged in court if they become law, which would waste taxpayer money, Hendricks said.
“These kinds of obstructionist laws imply that some of you simply do not trust the people of Arkansas,” he said.
No members of the public spoke for SB 212.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.