Major funding for election 2022 Arkansas PBS debates is provided by AARP Arkansas, with additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

From the campus of University of Central Arkansas in the studios of Arkansas, PBS is election, 2022 Arkansas PBS Attorney general debate.

In 54321 upon Jim and Justin.

And hello again everyone, and welcome again to debate week on Arkansas PBS.

At this hour, the candidates for Arkansas Attorney General, in alphabetical order, the Democratic nominee, Mr Jesse Gibson, and the Republican candidate, Tim Griffin.

The questions for the debate will come from our Arkansas public affairs team, Donna Terrell, also with Fox 16 News in Little Rock and Christina Munoz with the natural state.

Update and Arkansas PBS, I'm Steve Barnes.

The rules for the debate have been, of course, agreed to by both candidates prior to the debate.

Each nominee will have one minute to respond to questions.

The candidates will then have 30 seconds for rebuttal if they elect to do so.

And at the conclusion of questioning, each candidate will have one minute for a closing statement.

As always, the odor of candidate appearance was determined before the debate in a coin toss that was witnessed by the candidates or their representatives.

Our first question tonight will come from Miss Terrell and it goes to Mr Gibson.

OK, thank you.

And this question is actually for both of you.

Thank you so much for being here.

I'm wondering, in your opinion, what are the failures of the current Attorney General's office that's happened in that office, if any at all?

And if so, how would you do things differently and be specific?

Thank you so much for that question.

Thank you so much to Arkansas PBS.

I'd be remiss if I didn't thank my lovely wife Mandy, and my two boys, Jack and Jude.

There are several things that I would do much, much differently.

The first of all, my vision for the Attorney General's office is to return that office to being one of the top law firms in the state.

To remove the politics.

To not be a partisan political shop, but the best law firm in the entire state of Arkansas representing the interests of Arkansans in courtrooms around the state like I've been doing for 23 years.

Another thing I'd like to change is that the advertisements that our current attorney general and past attorneys general have run in this state, ostensibly for public service announcements that they've often been partisan and political using the taxpayers money.

I'll always be a good steward of that money that's received from lawsuits or settlements.

And I won't run those, those kind of ads unless there's a public declaration of emergency.

I've even suggested a moratorium on those ads 306090 days before any primary general election to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Mr Griffin, you have one minute, Sir.

Well, first of all, thank you all for letting us have the opportunity.

I want to thank my wife, Elizabeth, who's here, my three kids.

Hopefully they're in school.

They're not here.

But thank you all for having me.

Anybody that knows me knows that I'm gonna do things the way I do them and and not copy.

In the army.

We have a saying.

After you analyze the way something is conducted, we ask do we improve it or do we sustain it?

I think there will be things that I sustained, but there are also things I would do differently.

I believe that the the ad campaign, particularly the public service announcement campaign that cost millions of dollars was a waste.

Of spending should not have happened.

I've shown that I could be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

I cut my budget in the Lieutenant governor's office.

I cut the staff in half.

I will elevate the opinion section, and I will be much more engaged with the legislature, helping them work on legislation so that if I ever have to defend it, it will be on solid legal ground.

Time, Sir.

Or Mr Gibson back to you for 30 seconds.

In my 23 years of practicing law, I've learned one.

Immutable truth and that the only currency that you have in the practice of law is your reputation, your reputation for fairness and honesty in the cases that you handle, the way you deal with your fellow attorneys and the sense of collegiality and cooperation.

I want to bring that sense of collegiality and that integrity that I've built over those 23 years of practice to the Attorney General's office.

I think it's very key because it builds trust with the people of Arkansas.

It builds trust in that office that you'll always do the right thing for our Kansas.

Mr Griffin, back to you for 30.

Well, here's the bottom line.

As the President of the Senate, as the Lieutenant governor and serving in that role as the presiding officer, I've had to work with Democrats and Republicans.

I've had to put the partisan label to the side.

Yes, I'm elected as a Republican, but in the role as president of the Senate, I had to be a fair arbiter.

I will be that way.

As attorney General, yes, I'm running as a Republican.

But first and foremost.

I don't wanna be the state's attorney, which is not a partisan role.

And our next question from Miss Munoz, and it goes first to Mr Griffin.

Thank you for both of you as well.

You've both shared a little bit about your backgrounds, but let's go ahead and dig a little deeper into that.

What makes you qualified to be the state's lead attorney, Mr Griffin?

Well, first of all, I will be ready on day one to be the States Attorney general.

I have been a federal prosecutor on more than one occasion.

I have been a military prosecutor.

I've been an attorney for 26 years in the United States military and am now the chief legal adviser to A2 Star General at Fort Jackson, SC.

I've been a member of Congress on the House Judiciary Committee.

I have worked in the federal government and now in the state government and also in the private sector.

I have a breadth of experience that I will bring to this job.

I also think the relationships that I've developed.

In the legislature as Lieutenant governor will benefit me greatly as Attorney General.

Mr Gibson.

In 23 years of law practice, almost 1/4 century, that's a little hard for me to say out loud, but I tried over 100 cases to verdict.

I've represented individuals just like all of you out there tonight or this morning in cases all across Arkansas.

I have litigation experience in Arkansas courtrooms.

I've been in leadership positions that attorneys have elevated me to.

I've been the president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, been involved in lots of public policy debates in that role.

I've been on the board of trustees of the Arkansas Bar where my fellow attorneys entrusted.

With preserving and furthering interest in behalf of the legal profession.

I've been in Arkansas courtrooms representing people who've suffered great loss.

We can compare our, our track record on litigation experience.

You can compare Mr Griffin's record as to what cases he's handled in Arkansas courtrooms.

It's on court connect.

It's public and the answer is 0.

I've handled many cases in Arkansas and I'll be ready to have that litigation experience and serve the people of Arkansas back to Mr Griffin 4:30.

We certainly can compare our litigation experience and that is that is one thing.

To look at, but I've a lot of the military stuff that I have done has involved either litigation or assisting with adversarial proceedings.

I have also been in litigation as a as a commercial attorney.

But here's the deal, this job is not about litigation.

Most attorneys general aren't litigating every day.

This job is about judgment and leadership and that's where I have the advantage.

Because my opponent has not demonstrated the judgment over the years and has not demonstrated the same track record time.

Governor, Mr Gibson, over to you.

I do think leadership is important.

You know, Bear Bryant once said, famously that when we win, everybody else gets the credit.

When we lose, it's my fault.

What we've seen over the last eight years of a Republican governor, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State House and Senate, we've seen crime skyrocketed.

Which state?

And instead of trying to take a responsibility for that and saying we messed up, we're going to do better.

The Republican Party is blamed.

I really, honestly, I don't know who they're blaming for the crime issues, but leadership means taking responsibility when things don't go right.

Question for both of you gentlemen.

Beginning with Mr Gibson, the incumbent attorney General is is want to note that she has filed 100 pieces of litigation or more against the incumbent presidential administration.

Beginning with you Sir, how much of that litigation was necessary?

Are there individuals actions that you would say?

No, I would not take that action absolutely and that's a great question, Steve.

I think a great deal of that litigation has been frivolous.

I think it's been political grandstanding.

I think it's been unnecessary.

It's specifically it shows the difference between political rhetoric and law.

Politicians can say a lot of things, a lot of empty rhetoric, but when you have to actually go to court with evidence and facts and testimony that political rhetoric does not work the issues that the current attorney general.

Taken against the current or Biden administration has shown that they're more interested in politics than good governance than justice.

They've done these things involving elections, challenging the other states, elections.

As I travel around the state, that is one thing that I hear from Republicans, Democrats all across this state, that that was simply a bridge too far.

A waste of our taxpayer resources, a waste of the resources of the Attorney General's office and not the kind of action we want out of the Attorney General.

Over to you, Mr Griffin.

Yeah, well, I think what you've just heard is, is a partisan answer.

Look, I think the truth is some of those lawsuits should have been.

Brought in.

Some of them shouldn't.

In fact, there have been some that I wouldn't have brought.

But there have been many where the attorney general has been successful.

And I know her solicitor general, and he is a highly talented litigator and he's won some key victories even in the United States Supreme Court.

So look, I think if you paint it with a broad brush, you're giving a partisan answer.

I think that.

There are some that that were actually very good ideas.

And I'll say this, you can't discard that role.

Attorneys general have a role in looking at what's coming out of Washington, whether it be executive orders, regulations, laws coming out of Congress.

And they are part of the constitutional system.

They are part of the checks and balances to push back when there's federal overreach, whether it's from the Biden administration or the next administration, that's an important.

Well, gotta go back to Mr Gibson for 30.

Without any specifics.

I really don't know what specific plans or or actions that he's talking about.

But what I do know that is wrong and what I do know that politicians do is predetermine their course of action.

I know as a practicing attorney that making that determination before you know the facts and apply the applicable law, you get yourself into trouble.

What we've heard from our current Attorney general and from Mr Griffin is that they are angling for the federal government.

They want to take on the federal government.

I won't hesitate if there's something that hurts our.

10s but I won't do it as a matter of course and as a matter of politics.

And back to Mr Griffin.

Well, look, anybody that knows me knows that I'm not gonna Willy nilly file lawsuits if there's no legal basis.

That's just ridiculous.

The bottom line is you have to be vigilant and look at what's coming out of the federal government.

That's not predetermining, that's doing your job.

If you see something that should be litigated, you litigate it.

If there's no legal case and it's all politics, you shouldn't do it.

Mr Rell has the next question, and he goes first to Mr Griffin.

OK, I I want to kind of focus on what's motivating you to to want to run for this office beyond what qualifies you for it.

But what's motivating you and Mr Griffin?

You initially set out to run for governor, and then when Sarah Huckabee Sanders entered the race, you determined that you would run for AG.

So what has motivated you to now want to be?

The attorney general.

I love public service.

I love this state.

This is not a state where I work and then I drive home some other state.

This is where I live.

I've lived on the same St for 21 years in Little Rock.

I've got three kids.

I may look like a grandpa, but I've got three young kids, 1512 and four.

That's right, four.

This is their future.

In the last two years, there have been 2.

Attempted murders within about 3 football fields of my front door.

This is personal to me if I were not.

Serving in public office, I would still be you probably wouldn't invite me to be a participate in a debate, but I would still be extremely passionate and forward leaning because I live here.

And I love my city and I love my state.

And I don't care what capacity.

I will always be engaged.

Mr Gibson.

One minute, Sir.

One of my favorite pieces of scripture is Matthew 2540, which says that which you do for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you also do for me.

That's really the reason I want to run for Attorney General.

It's really the reason I've wanted to become a lawyer in the 1st place, is because I know I've seen suffering in my life, as we all have.

I've seen people struggle, maybe the loss of a loved one, maybe a business problem.

They can't come out.

And I've seen how the compassionate practice of law and serving the least of these.

Achieves so much for our state, for my clients, for everyone in the state.

It's what drives me is why I want to be attorney general.

There is no other office that touches more lies than the Attorney General's office.

There's no office that impacts more people on a day-to-day basis for everywhere from their utility bills down to everything they do on a daily basis across the country or across the state.

I want to serve the least of these.

I have not seen that out of our legislature.

What I have seen is punching down against people who do not need that but need grace.

Another 30 seconds for Mr Griffin.

Yeah, look, I grew up with some great examples.

I've come from a long line of ministers.

My dad is 86 years old and he he's a retired minister.

My mom's an early childhood teacher.

They demonstrated servant leadership every single day, not making a lot of money, but helping folks their entire lives.

So I grew up with that example.

I didn't have to join the military.

I joined in 1996 and I've been in ever since service.

Is what I do and I'm doing it now and I want to continue doing it.

If the people of Arkansas give me that option.

Another half minute.

Now for Mr Gibson to go back to the original question, you know, I'm talking about changing races.

You know, I know Mr Griffin had declared to run for governor and then decided to to to drop down to the Attorney General's office.

The question I have is as important for why do you want this jobs?

Do you really want this job or are you just want to have some kind of role in government?

My desire is to help the least of these.

Not to to find a landing spot, not to find my second choice.

My entire career, my entire legal career has led to this time.

Got a call time.

There was miss.

Miss Munoz has a next question.

And it goes first to Mr Gibson.

OK.

Thank you.

So before we did all of these debates this week, we also allowed our viewers to submit questions via social media.

So this next question comes from a viewer.

In Pulaski and Hot Spring County, Arkansas law prohibiting abortion makes no exception for rape or incest victims.

Should the law be amended to permit abortion in those cases?

Mr Gibson, you first with the caveat that the attorney.

General does not have.

He or she cannot say which laws he will he or she will enforce and which they won't.

I will say that as I've traveled this state from Bentonville to Lake Village.

Our archaic trigger law is front of mind to people all across this state and they are angry.

They are angry that they are going to have government mandated forced pregnancy in cases of incest, in cases of rape, and that there's not even a an exception for the health of the mother.

It's the life of the mother which leads us to all kinds of impossible situations, some of which have been reported.

It's an A barbaric law.

Even our own governor who signed the law says now he doesn't like it.

I appreciate Mr Griffin.

Finally, I've read it in the paper the other day and the Democrat Gazette.

He says he opposes the law and its form and wishes there was a rape or incest exception.

But when the bill went through the Senate, which he presides, he said nothing.

He didn't do anything to stop it.

Only now, and there may be political repercussions, has he come out against it.

Over to Mr Griffin.

Yeah.

Once again, my opponent doesn't understand the role of the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate, the Lieutenant governor, is not engaged in the middle of the debate publicly.

You have to be a fair arbiter.

With the Democrats and the Republicans, and even with the factions that are within the Republican Party, what I have said.

Is I have a pro-life record, I would 100% pro-life in in Congress, 100% pro-life.

As Lieutenant Governor, I have always supported, I have always supported exceptions for rape and incest.

I did not say I opposed the law.

A simply said as Attorney General, I will defend whatever laws I have to defend.

My personal preference in this area is an exception for rape and incest.

There's some discussion.

About this among legislators, and I believe that there will be more discussion when we have our session.

You have another 30, Mr Gibson.

That session does not start for several more months.

How many women have to be put in impossible positions?

Before we take action.

How many women have to have that conversation with a Doctor Who then has to get on the phone with the hospital's lawyers about can we do this procedure?

This law will cause harm.

And just saying we'll look at this in the future is not leadership that's passing the buck when the chips were down, when the decisions were made.

The Republican Party did nothing.

Mr Griffin.

You have another 30 seconds, Sir.

Yeah, I'm not.

I'm not sure what action Mr Gibson is is proposing.

We don't have a we don't have a full time legislature.

Thank goodness.

I don't think we should.

I I like the Constitution as it currently is.

Now, the governor could call a special session if he wanted to do that.

That's up to him.

We all know that the Lieutenant governor cannot call a special session.

That's not one of the roles enumerated in the state constitution, so.

This will be taken up, I believe, but I'm not a legislator.

But I'll defend the law in the role as Attorney General's gotta call time, Mr Griffin.

To both gentlemen, beginning with Mr Griffin as a matter of law, as your own legal philosophy, your own legal schooling and education, beginning with Mr Griffin, was Roe properly decided back in the 70s and does the repeal of Roe infringe on women's rights improperly?

It was not properly decided.

It was to be blunt with you.

It was made-up out of whole cloth.

And I think that answers your second question.

Look.

Just because you think something should exist doesn't mean it's in the Constitution.

There are a lot of things that you may want, but that doesn't mean they're in the Constitution.

You can't just make stuff up.

And that's a particular philosophy.

Those who see the Constitution as this morphing living document basically mean that as times change and as circumstances change, they can just.

Create things out of thin air.

And that's what was done with the the right to privacy as it was laid out in the road case.

And it's been a long time coming.

It should be with the states.

It's with the states now.

Got to go to Mr Gibson.

You have one minute, Sir.

The only thing I can say, the people of Arkansas is that with this philosophy take cover.

Because under this philosophy you'll see all kinds of rights under a say under attack.

You there will come after many rights that that we've hold dear and become woven into the fabric of our of our country and of our state.

I do believe that that decision, original decision of Roe was, was founded upon sound, sound legal precedent.

I do believe that it would become over the last 50 years, deeply ingrained in our culture and in the decisions that women make.

So the only people that belong in that decision making room are.

A woman.

Her doctor.

And then she so chooses her pastor, placing government.

Into that room to make those decisions for women is wrong.

It's an overreach.

We started talking about overreach a little bit already.

That is the most.

Egregious form of overreach in its improper Mr Griffin, you have another 30.

Well, my opponent misses a fundamental point.

There are three people in the room and one of them can't speak.

And that's the problem with his view of the world.

His view is as long as the mouth is shut on the baby, it's not a person.

And I just disagree with it.

And you know, the great news is most Arkansans totally disregard what he said.

And if you want to amend the Constitution, you don't just wake up with a view of what it should be and write it in in a in a court decision.

You try to amend it and if you can't get it amended.

Mr Gibson, 36 now, I I think that what we have to do and what I think the people in Arkansas want is to have women make these choices.

Women have the right to disable their bodily autonomy.

Women have the right to make these choices.

It's a matter of health.

It's a matter of safety, and I'll always protect that as your attorney general.

Our next question from Miss Terrell and it goes first to Mr Gibson.

As my colleague Christina pointed out, we did receive a lot of viewer questions.

This one is inspired from one of our viewers in Benton County.

What is your view on former President Trump's involvement, if any, in the January 6th insurrection?

And if that were, or if that had happened in the state of Arkansas, would you prosecute?

Thank you for that question.

January 6th was the day I decided I wanted to run for Attorney General.

It was the day that I stated my office and thought our country is falling apart.

And it's time to do something.

It's time to get off the couch.

It's time to put your phone down.

It's time to get in the game.

And the best way that I can do that is to run for Attorney General.

The legal system is running its course.

There have been many, many convictions of people that were involved and engaged in that horrible day, that attack on our our our country.

There will be more.

The January 6th Commission has requested Mr Trump to attend those hearings, and justice will run its course.

We'll see where that goes.

But if it happened in our capital, if miss, if there had been insurrection our capital, of course we would prosecute.

Of course we had urged county prosecutors to take action.

Of course we would want to back the blue.

You can't back the blue if you don't call out what happened on January 6th.

As for what it was a direct attack on our democracy, our law enforcement and our.

Institution, Mr Griffin.

One minute I was disgusted by what happened on January 6.

I said it back then.

I've said it since then.

I've slept in those buildings.

I worked as a staffer in those buildings.

To me, those are a sacred place within our democracy.

In anyone, anyone.

Anyone who has found to have violated the law on that day should be prosecuted.

Period.

Case closed.

Over.

I'm still disgusted by it.

Look, I've worn the uniform.

I lived two blocks from that place.

And I I've.

I've talked to a lot of other members of the military who were also disgusted by everything that happened.

The vice president's life was put at risk.

Lots of others lives were put at risk.

It was a dark day, a disgusting day, and.

I hope that all the people prosecuted to get the maximum sentence time, Sir.

Mr Gibson, 30 seconds.

Yes.

What I've heard from a lot of of candidates, the Republican candidates, that we just need to move on.

Let's just move on from this, from this issue until justice is done.

That cannot happen until all those that are held accountable for the actions they took.

We cannot and should not just simply move on.

Justice requires that they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

They've justice requires that the truth come out and justice.

Requires.

Accountability.

For those who think that they are above the rules, simple accountability feels like persecution.

Back to Mr Griffin for another 30 seconds.

Make sure it's very clear.

I think anyone heard my answer.

No, I didn't say move on.

There's no one more pro Justice, Pro police and pro locking up violent criminals than Tim Griffin.

Which reminds me that the reason a lot of our our criminal justice system here is such a disaster.

Is because people, there are people in government.

Who are elected, who do not believe we need to lock violent criminals up?

And they're going to have a chance to be on the record, I believe, next year in the legislative session.

Christina Munoz has our next question and it goes first to Mr Griffin.

Thank you.

So one of the numerous lawsuits that we've already talked about between Arkansas and this current administration is regarding student loan debt.

So do you believe in this particular case, legally speaking, that the President acted beyond his authority or that is it is a benefit to a group of Arkansans financially, Mr Griffin?

Well, more than one.

Thing can be true at the same time.

When you give people.

Thousands of dollars.

Of course it's beneficial.

I didn't get that I had over $100,000 in loans.

I worked my tail off.

I think I was in.

I'd have to ask my wife.

I think I was in my 40s when I finally got them paid off.

So yeah, I resent.

The fact that others.

Got that?

Wiped away and millions of people have worked their tails off.

The way it ought to be.

You take out a loan, you fulfill your commitment.

So, yeah, if people benefited from it, sure.

Do I think it's right?

No.

Do I think it's legal?

I think there's a good case to be made.

And attorneys general are making that case.

It's a perfect example of where when there's overreach you can challenge.

It's part of our checks and balances.

It's part of our constitutional system.

I think it was a horrible idea since the wrong signal to people.

Mr Gibson, I want to be real clear because I think this is an issue where the political rhetoric muddies the water.

These this student loan forgiveness plan is just is not just for people who went to expensive private schools.

If you're in Arkansas and you went to.

Say you tagged and got some welding training Northwest Arkansas Community College and got nursing training.

You may be eligible.

There's it's not just for what some people have have argued in the nationally it for the rich or for people who are are wealthy already.

There are many of us work really working class people here in Arkansas who might benefit from this.

So look into it.

Look into whether you will be eligible for that student loan forgiveness.

Now the other issue is one of power.

Is this a valid exercise of power?

The COVID-19 pandemic, it was one of the most life changing events of my entire life.

It affected us economically, it affected us our public health, it affected us in so many ways and it it triggered the emergency powers to take action even in an economic emergency.

And that's what the basis of power is.

I think the litigation will be unsuccessful.

Back to Mr Griffin for another 30 seconds.

Well, let's be real clear if you're wealthy or rich.

You're not taking out a $10,000 student loan.

You're just, not and so.

It's just not about who benefits.

Anybody that gets 10 grand benefits.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether after millions of people have worked their tails off to pay back their loans, sometimes over decades.

I mean, I remember my wife and I think we both about celebrated when that 354 or whatever dollar a month payment that I paid for forever.

And we got that paid off time over to Mr Gibson for 30.

Yeah.

So I I really, I want to reiterate that, you know, sometimes people who do have means have to take out student loans.

Still.

It just all depends.

Every circumstance is different.

So I think lumping everyone together into classes as the haves and have nots is not the right way to look at it.

The right way to look at it is for people in Arkansas.

There are plenty of people out there who need this help.

Young people, older people, it doesn't matter.

It cuts across age, gender, whatever.

There are people out there that need this help.

So that we can get our economy continuing on track.

Question for both gentlemen, of course.

And it begins with Mr Gibson, Sir.

In reversing Roe, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is willing to disregard or revisit what was considered precedent.

Some are now arguing that same sex marriage should be revisited, reconsidered by the court.

Give us your thoughts.

I think that be would you support that?

Ohh no, certainly not.

And that's what I I warned about a little earlier Steve when I I spoke about take cover is that there are many rights that have become ingrained in our society.

Interracial marriage, same sex marriage.

Lots of these things that are based upon the similar rights to privacy and Roe.

They may be on the ballot for if politicians are allowed to go after them.

If you're being intellectually honest about the reasoning and Dobbs, they are very much on the chopping block.

And the question that Arkansans have to ask themselves is, is that the way we want to go as a state?

Do we want to go back to times where, when we couldn't have interracial marriage, we want to have these these policies that seem to have gone the way of the past?

I don't think we do.

That's why I think the harm that could have been that that was inflicted by the Dobbs decision won't stop there because as we have all seen, career politicians and creatures of Washington will always try to make those political points.

Mr Griffin, one minute.

Yeah.

So I believe that this is settled law, this, the Supreme Court hasn't called for this to be revisited.

There is an individual member of the Supreme Court who opined in this area in dicta, but the idea that this is somehow about to be revisited is not true.

I support it like President Clinton and President Obama and so many.

I supported the idea that marriage was between a man and a woman, but this is settled law.

And.

I don't know what the interracial marriage has to do with with this particular.

It doesn't have anything to do with this at all.

I don't.

I think that that is trying to push some buttons and election year.

So I don't see it as a as a major issue.

Mr Gibson, back to you for 30 seconds.

I'm a little confused as to what's considered settled law and what's not because Roe versus Wade has been the law of the land for 50 years, if he's saying that the the loving case out of Virginia.

Or or other cases involving social issues are settled law, but this one's not.

That's not being intellectually honest.

The intellectual honesty that I was talking about is that if you believe there is no right to privacy.

There are ways you could challenge all of these other cases.

I believe they'll be coming.

I believe there will be litigation.

There's already been talk in state legislatures across our country.

That's why I said to Arkansans, take cover.

Now, Mr Griffin, 30 seconds for a follow up.

Yeah.

So there are the reasons that there are distinctions between these different cases is because the law is different.

And there are some things that are settled law and there are other things that were never based on law in the 1st place and were made-up.

One justice talked about the right to privacy that was used in in Roe V Wade as emanating from the Penumbras.

That's where he found it.

Didn't see it just it was emanating from the numbers we want to pause at this moment during the debate to.

Let you know, remind you that the candidates can participate in a press conference directly following the debate.

And to watch that you can scan the QR code on your screen with your mobile device.

You will see that QR code periodically through the balance of our debate.

Miss Terrell has the next question and it goes first to Mr Griffin.

OK, let's talk about the root causes of crime in our state, Mr Griffin, obviously this question will be for both of you, but Mr Griffin.

You talk a lot on Twitter, on your Twitter page about early release of parolees and them getting out of prison, committing these violent crimes.

This is in terms of the early release that's been going on for a long time.

But we do know over the last eight years we've had a Republican regime that could have changed this.

So I'm wondering what has gone wrong.

And for you, Mr Gibson, you talked about hopelessness.

I'd like to get a better understanding of what.

Hopelessness, in your view, is and if that's really the root cause of crime and how do you fix that?

Mr Griffiths, yeah.

So clearly enough.

Not enough people agree with me on reforming the revolving door system.

I think we're getting there.

The federal system has no parole.

You serve 85% of your sentence.

You can get up to 15% good time.

The problem in our state is someone may get 10 years for sexual assault of a minor, and they're out in 24 months, as is 1 specific case.

How do we know they got out?

Because they're back in again for Internet stalking.

Of a minor.

This happens all the time.

People do a mere fraction of their sentence now.

Root calls us.

I've served on the Board of Pathway to Freedom, a prison ministry.

I've LED worship at Wrightsville prison at least twice.

I was on the board of our House shelter for the working homeless, was on the board of Big Brothers Big Sisters.

I've seen up close a lot of these root causes, and we have to deal with rehabilitation in a meaningful way.

In mental health, we've got to expand that capacity.

Throwing flag Mr streets.

Now I've got a call time.

Mr Gibson.

One minute.

Mr Rell put her finger right on it.

We've had a Republican governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State House, Senate.

And what have they done to curb our crime problem?

Nothing.

Nothing.

They merely talk about it on Twitter and say that we have a parole problem.

I hear Mr Griffin talk about our systems broke and our system doesn't work, but when you've been in power for eight years.

You are the system.

And if that system is broken?

It's time to take responsibility for it and take time to change it.

I still don't know who he's blaming for this parole problem.

I don't know if it's talking about the Republican legislature.

I don't know if he's talking about the governor.

I'm a little bit confused.

But to your question about homelessness and what I mean by that, it's multifaceted.

I think it's about economic opportunity.

I think it's about having educational programs that allow people to achieve their best.

And there's a feeling of that hopelessness when you don't have those economic opportunities, say in the delta or in South Arkansas.

And it leads to this sense of hopelessness and problem moving forward.

Over to Mr Griffin from I'm from South Arkansas and so is my wife.

So very familiar with the economic struggles of South Arkansas and and do everything we can to address them.

I can tell you this the system that my opponent refers to is the system that was developed through Drip Democrat rule for years.

Should it have been changed yesterday six years ago.

Yes.

Eight years ago yes and I've I've pushed for this.

It hasn't been, and it's because too many people agree with him.

Mr Gibson, 30 seconds.

It's not leadership to look at the last eight years and blame anyone.

But the current administration and the Republican Party?

They've dominated all the constitutional offices, House, Senate.

They've done nothing to talk about the parole problem.

It might interest the people of Arkansas know that the parole Board is appointed by the executive, of which Mr Griffin is second in line.

Has he asked people to be appointed to that board?

They're approved and and confirmed by the Senate of which he overseas.

If there's a problem with our parole board, it's been on his watch.

Christina Munoz with a question first for Mr Gibson.

Yes this is another viewer question.

This one coming from Montgomery County.

Do you support the proposed amendment legalizing recreational marijuana in the state of Arkansas?

Mr Gibson to you first again this is 1 where the Attorney general may there may be litigation, so I want to.

Give that caveat.

So as a matter of policy, I'll give my thoughts.

I do, I I do support the idea of recreational marijuana.

And here's why.

There's 30 some odd states out of 50 that have some form of marijuana legalization.

Medical recreational we have medical marijuana here in Arkansas.

The train may not have left the station, but they're piling the colon and the Steam's pumping.

This is the way that the country is going.

This is the way the country is moving.

This will do a couple things.

It will put money in our state coffers.

It will bolster our economy.

And more importantly, if you're serious about crime in Arkansas, what this would do it would be to free up resources for so law enforcement cannot deal with nonviolent drug offenses, but go after violent crimes, go after things that affect our our safe streets, our safe neighborhoods, and our safe schools.

I do support it.

It's imperfect.

It's an imperfect amendment.

But I don't think we should make the perfect enemy of the good.

I think it would be a net positive across the board for the state of Arkansas.

Tim Griffin, one minute.

Let me say this first about crime.

My opponent misunderstands the role of the Lieutenant governor.

We have one governor at a time.

We have one attorney general at a time.

I can tell you this, if you're a Republican and you have not been part of the solution on changing transforming our criminal justice system, the parole system, yeah, I'll put the blame on you.

I can tell you, though.

I think you're going to see with all the new folks coming in, I think you're going to see massive change in this area as soon as the new legislature is seated.

And I'm helping on that right now on the marijuana initiative.

Of course I oppose this.

This is ridiculous.

It's to say that we're going to get more money for police.

That's like saying I'm gonna make I'm going to build more hospitals so I can make more people sick.

It's you.

You're gonna create more crime.

Here's the bottom line.

We've all heard.

Probably of moonbeam.

Jerry Brown.

Hurry up, Sir.

I've got.

Alright let me go back to Mr Gibson.

No no I I I I know that that Mr Griffin is often talked about Jerry Brown the Governor of California.

Let's not forget the California's got the 4th largest economy in the world.

So I don't think that that just poo pooping and moving past the the economic benefits is sound.

I do think they're there and I do think they're real and I do think that what what law enforcement will be able to do is to say OK we can now focus on the things that affect us in our homes, in our schools, in our neighborhoods those violent crimes that.

Affect people all across our state.

I think that's net positive for Arkansas.

Now back to Mr Griffin for another 30.

He's he's not speaking facts, so we check with the corrections.

There are fewer than 10 people in our prisons who are there because of simple possession of marijuana.

The idea that this is what folks are spending, that the law enforcement spending their days on, is ridiculous.

I drive past people smoking pot every day and it's recreational's not even legal.

Look, if we're going to have a bunch of poets in Arkansas, it may not matter as much if they're all high.

But if we want people doing high tech jobs that they've got to pass a drug test for, we're going to have a really hard time recruiting aerospace industry and car industry.

If they're on high on pot.

Governor out of time question of course, both gentlemen and Mr Griffin, we will begin with you Amendment 3 on on the ballot a religious freedom amendment.

It has been advocated by great.

And the clergy, obviously, but opposed by a great many in the clergy as well as in the bar.

It would have barred the state from imposing on religion a burden or a burdensome exercise absent, I'm paraphrasing, absent a compelling reason, is that not an invitation to continued litigation?

Is that too vague?

People, as my opponent knows, as a troller, people litigate all over all all kinds of stuff.

That's not really a test.

You don't avoid something because someone's going to sue.

People sue all the time, so that's not really the issue.

Look religious.

Freedom is one of our most fundamental rights, and it's enshrined in the United States Constitution.

Thank goodness.

This is a belt and suspenders approach.

It's not doing anything here.

Really separate from.

The United States Constitution.

But it's saying as a state, we wanna also enshrine it in our state constitution.

Look, our state constitution, the it's been amended for just about everything.

I mean, you name it, it's got all kinds of stuff in there that should have never been in a state constitution.

That's why I'm supporting amendment issue 2.

But this is a perfect example of the sort of thing that should be in the state constitution.

And with that, over to Mr Gibson for a minute, Sir, I think one of the things that Mr Griffin just said, I think sums it up.

It's not really doing anything.

We live in America.

We have religious freedom.

You know, there's an article in the paper this morning, Jerry Cox of the Family Council, who I've worked with on lots of legal issues, said, well, there's not really been any kind of attack on religion that this would protect them from.

We just want to.

To be doubly careful.

So I think Mr Griffin is correct that this won't really do anything.

You know, we're free to practice our faith in our, in our own ways, in our own time.

And I think that's something that we enjoy as Americans.

And it's nothing that we have to put in our, our constitution because we already have it.

I'm very active in my church and and I know that Mr Griffin is too.

And and I think it's something that we have to, to take internally.

I think it's something that we have to have within ourselves and it's not anything that we have to have political grandstanding.

Or certainly it's not some amendment to commemorate what our Bill of Rights already has.

Mr Griffin, you have another 30 seconds.

Yeah, I never said it won't do anything.

As my opponent knows, when you sign a waiver before you jump out of a plane, it's not going to stop litigation, but it's certainly going to prolong it, make it more complicated.

I think that this, as I said, is a belt and suspenders approach because of what Arkansas sees so many times.

Coming from the East Coast and the West Coast, a lot of the bad stuff that starts there ends up here.

And I think that people are scared and I think they've got reason to be.

Time.

Back to Mr Gibson, 30 seconds.

I'm not jumping out of an airplane, I can promise you that.

But, you know, it's, I think the converse is also true.

You know it.

Mr Griffin is saying that the bad stuff starts on the coast and comes here.

Having dealt with attorneys general across the nation, a lot of the bad stuff starts here.

And a lot of the bad legislation starts here in Arkansas and goes other places.

That's the problem.

I don't think this is necessary.

I don't think this is something that the people clamored for.

I think this is just more politics.

I think this was people realizing that they wanted to pound their chest this amendment, and I just don't think it's necessary.

Another question from Mr Well, first to Mr Gibson.

OK, Well, Arkansas is the first state in the nation enacting a law on gender confirming care.

As both of you know, there is a trial going on in Little Rock challenging the constitutionality of this law and you have many parents who are saying that taking away care could be detrimental to their children.

Knowing that, do you feel that this law should be reversed or revised?

And why very timely question.

As you say there's litigation currently in Eastern District federal court.

This is a case where the difference between politics and law is laid bare.

This is where the empty rhetoric from politicians who want to pass harmful legislation like this.

He's going to run into trouble when it comes into under legal scrutiny.

I think a really telling issue on on transgender care was borne out when our current attorney general sat down with Jon Stewart.

On on national national TV.

And to talk about this issue, you're not going to be able to go into court in the Eastern District of Arkansas and make a political argument or grandstand or talk about empty radical or or all things you can't prove.

You've got to come in with facts, you've got to come in with evidence.

You've got to come in with medical testimony.

I think this is going to be hard to uphold because a judge is going to make a decision based on the facts and the law, not politics.

I don't think it's going to be supported, and I expect it to fail, although there will be appeals.

60 seconds, Mr Griffin.

Yeah, look, the wiseness, the wisdom of accepting an interview with a with a comic is something.

I'm not going to comment.

I think that interview speaks for itself.

Having said that, look.

This is eminently reasonable, and I think it may end up at the United States Supreme Court.

Whoever is elected will have to defend it.

What you're saying here is you are you're not banning transgender surgery and gender modification surgery and medicines for adults, you're saying.

That kids like mine at 12 and 15, who by the way, some wake up with a new personality every day.

Sometimes I meet ten different people in the same week in the form of their personality.

They're growing.

They're changing.

What it says is we've chosen to protect minors from life altering, irreversible surgery and medical treatment.

Gibson gonna totally agree about the teenager thing.

That's something that we all are going to deal with.

I I've seen that first hand since my wife.

But the issue is here is that's very important is it's important to talk to these families.

I've gone out.

This is nothing that I have a great background in.

But I've talked to families about the care that they need and what he's talking about this this this this invasive surgery is so far down the chain of events.

There's counseling there are as hormone therapy where they just don't jump in and allow a minor to have an invasive surgery and talking to these families sometimes it's been life.

Saving the suicide rate among transgender is astronomical.

Out of time, that would miss.

Munoz has the next question, first for Mr Griffin's rebuttal, still from.

Well, I'm sorry.

Well, I'm sorry.

Rebuttal time.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Yeah, look, this is this is not still on the last question, 30 seconds.

This is not an easy issue.

But at the end of the day, let's be real blunt with the people of Arkansas.

We're talking about cutting off.

Transforming whatever technical term you want to altering permanently the genitalia.

Of 141516 year olds.

Removing the breast of a young woman who's not yet an adult.

That's what we're talking about here.

That's 30 seconds, Sir.

Back to you, Sir.

No way.

But our next question now.

I'm sorry, Miss Munoz.

Mr Munoz has a question.

And it goes to Mr Griffin.

Yes, Sir.

So clearly you both are very passionate about your beliefs, your ideals, somewhere along political lines.

Some are not.

As Attorney General, how will you separate those beliefs, ideals, everything that you stand for with regard to not only following the law, but interpreting the law?

And we go to Mr Griffin first.

Yeah.

Look, this is an area where.

I actually think we agree.

This is a an office that has a partisan label.

We certainly believe very differently and would pursue different policies, no question about it.

But I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt when he says that he's going to try to do the right thing on the law.

Of course, that's what I have to do as a military lawyer.

That's what I've done as president of the Senate when I've had to interpret rules.

Many of the rulings I gave from the chair in the state Senate I didn't like, some of them I really didn't like, and some of them I liked, but I did what was right based on my.

Interpretation of the law.

I will certainly pursue conservative policies as AG because a lot of what the AG does is pursue policies.

But I will pursue the law in a nonpartisan way because that's the job.

That's time, Sir.

Over to Mr Gibson it makes a great point.

And then this office is a little bit weird.

I will be the first to admit it and that it does mix impartial law and and legal decisions with politics and it's it's it's.

Right.

And that's why a couple of times in this debate, I, I've given the cop caveat that the attorney general doesn't get to pick and choose.

And, and I want to be careful because there may be pending litigation just for that very reason.

Is that because you might have to get involved as the attorney general with a lot of the laws that we're talking about.

However, I think Mr Griffin, I will agree with him on another thing, is that there's nothing wrong with a leader.

There's nothing wrong with a leader coming out and supporting certain policies that you think are important.

It it can get a little sticky as the attorney general, but I do think it's important.

I think that's part of being a leader is going out there telling our Kansans what you believe, what you think is important and what you'll do as attorney general.

I really, I've always tried to do this, to cultivate that sense of Fair play in my practice of law.

I'm proud over this course of these years, I think I've got that good reputation as an advocate, a zealot zealous advocate, but also a fair dealer.

Another 30 seconds, Mr Griffin.

Yeah.

Look, I I think that policy.

Priorities.

All of those sorts of things.

Follow your values, follow your beliefs.

And as a conservative, those are going to be my priorities in a very different way than my opponent.

That's not necessarily depending on the issue.

That's not partisanship.

That is part of who you are, the way you view the world, and that's expected.

And I will certainly be a conservative attorney general.

Not irresponsibly inappropriately, Mr Mr Gibson.

I'm committed to always doing the right thing.

I I tell my, my, my wife all the time that one of the things I try to do is every night when we go to bed is to think that I do everything right for my clients, my family, my kids try to do the right thing.

That's what I'll do as attorney General.

I want to have that sense of trust with the people of Arkansas.

That I'll always keep your interest at heart.

I'll always try to do the right thing.

We can disagree on certain policies, but right and wrong and justice, the concept of justice doesn't waver.

Thank you gentlemen for your responses.

Time now for closing statements.

And again as was predetermined by the flip of a coin.

Mr Griffin, your first Sir.

Thank you again for this opportunity to be here today.

I'm asking for your vote.

I will always be accessible as your attorney general, the way I've always been.

My cell phones, the same 5018375190.

I continue to hear from people, love to hear from people, but I'm asking for your vote because I'm prepared, maybe like no other AG has been, to start and hit the ground running on day one.

That's why former Democrat Attorney General Dustin McDaniel endorsed me.

That's why the Fraternal Order of Police have endorsed me.

I will be ready on day one.

Secondly, I'm the only conservative running for attorney general.

I will continue to fight to reform our criminal justice system, stand shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement.

That's why the Fraternal Order of Police have endorsed me.

And I will push back against the Biden administration and federal overreach where legally appropriate.

And that's one asking for your vote.

Thank you.

That's your minute, Sir.

Over to Mr Gibson.

You have 60 seconds.

You know, growing up on a dead end dirt Rd in lead Hill, AR, population 274.

I never thought that I'd be on this stage with an esteemed panel, a worthy opponent asking the people of Arkansas for their vote for Attorney General.

And in a way, I feel like I've already won.

Because I've shown that for kids who may not wear the right clothes, whose parents may not have money.

Who may not have influence if there's a way for you to serve your community.

Your state.

And your nation?

I want to be an example for those kids who grew up on those dirt roads and who believe in the causes of justice.

More than anything.

I wanna thank my mom and dad.

Joe and Janice Gibson, both 30 year teachers in our Arkansas public schools.

I hope I made you proud.

I'm asking for your vote for Attorney General.

I'm Jesse Gibson.

I want this job.

I can do this job, and I believe in justice above all.

Gentlemen, thank you for your time and as always, thank you for yours, our 62nd rather, our 60 minutes is up immediately following this event.

You can watch all the Arkansas PBS debates on demand at the Arkansas PBS YouTube channel.

On the PBS video app and on our website, as we mentioned earlier, the candidates have the option to participate just seconds from now in a press conference that directly follows the debate and that will air on YouTube as part of our life, excuse me, our live stream.

So scan the OR code the QR code there on your screen and begin watching on YouTube right now.

Again, thanks to our candidates participating and to our panelists both here at Reynolds performance.

All and at home for watching Election Day, November 8th.

Thank you.

Major funding for election 2022 Arkansas PBS debates is provided by AARP Arkansas, with additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.