Support for Arkansas week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

The Arkansas times and Kuer FM 89.

Hello everyone, welcome to the program.

I'm doctor Malcolm Glover.

Filling in for my friend Steve Barnes.

Efforts are underway in Arkansas to add loss to the books that would make sure people who commit violent crimes receive stiffer penalties when their lawless actions are motivated.

By prejudice on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other factors.

The movement to pass a hate crimes law through the Legislature has its detractors who argue these enhanced penalties to confront bias serve no purpose because a crime is a crime, and the laws that already exist should be enforced.

Now to a broader discussion of this issue with state Senate President Pro Tempor region hendron of Gravitt, who is one of the drafters of this measure, and Jerry Cox, who serves as president of the family Council of conservative education and research organization, gentlemen, thank you for being here.

Thank you, thank you.

I'm wondering if we could start off with Senator Hendron.

Why this hate crimes measure and why now?

Well, clearly.

There's a lot of things that are going on in society today that have got people's attention that we have got to do better.

About getting people to control their hate, to control their emotions, we've got to do better as a state in Arkansas.

As you know, the governor's been talking about this for nearly a year.

And part of the reason for that is Arkansas'.

Now one of only three states that have not passed hate crime legislation.

And for us to be the last or the only state which is very possible in the next 12 months or so, to not have any protection for crimes that are committed.

The cause of hatred towards a person because they're different does not speak well of our state.

So I think it's a thing we can do to improve the image of Arkansas.

The time is right, and it's time to move Arkansas to join the other 47 states, including every state that touches our border.

To have these types of protections.

Mr.

Cox and wondering if we could talk about some of your key concerns as you learn more about this proposed measure.

Absolutely.

And let me say on the outset that I really applaud.

What Senator Hendron and others are trying to do I. I wish these laws worked.

But over 20 years of experience in looking at what's been done in other States and the fact that we have a federal.

Hate crimes law.

Tells us that the they don't stop hate crimes these awful crimes that are going on are being done in states that have hate crimes laws and actually the instances of hate crimes in Arkansas is much lower than many other parts of the country and so.

The bottom line is, these laws just don't work because you're trying to address something that's of the heart, which is hatred, and I wish we could do that, but laws just don't reach that far and they they have unintended consequences.

For example, the people who passed these laws are well intended, but you never know how an activist judges going to enforce and apply that law, and so we see some really distorted applications of those hate crimes laws from around the country.

They have really no bearing on all the unrest and things that we're all dealing with right now, and I would submit that it really takes peoples eyes off of real solutions like what do you do about chokeholds?

What do you do about no knock warrants?

What do you do about racial profiling and the unequal justice that exist?

Just passing a hate crimes law is not going to get at these really serious problems.

It hasn't done it in other states.

And it won't do it here in Arkansas.

Senator Hendron Let's talk about some of the nuts and bolts of the measure.

Are we talking about sentencing enhancements here?

What are some of the other points that you think are very important that if this legislation passes could be helpful to arkansans.

Well, I appreciate that because there is a whole lot more and there's a lot of misunderstanding about what I hate.

Crimes bill does.

Many people thinks, think it creates a new crime.

It does not.

This provides enhancements for some of the worst crimes that people come in.

And so I appreciate Jerry Statement, but I just don't agree that having harsher penalties has no impact now is it going to solve the problem of hate crime?

Certainly not.

And also the statement that we have less, we don't know how many we have because there's no reporting mechanism because we have no statutory authority to do that.

This bill creates and requires that the state police track and reported it, and the attorney generals office track hate crimes and report those to the General Assembly so that we can compare and see if they're having any impact or any effect.

And the fact again that 47 other states have done this and none have repealed.

It tells us that there's a reason, and one of those fundamental reasons.

Is to make sure that people understand we can't control hey, but we can send a very clear message that when you take that hate and translate it into a current criminal act, not a new, not a new penalty.

You you create a crime based on that and people can prove that it was based on that person's gender or race or several other categories that are lined out in the bill.

Then you have taken hate to a new level that is not just does not reflect the values of Arkansas, so it's important again that we send a message that hate will not be tolerated, particularly when you take that and turn it into a criminal act.

Mr Cox.

How about that?

Because at the federal level, the FBI says that hate crimes designation is so important because they recognize how these kinds of crimes incite fear and hurt families and communities.

So if law enforcement officials at the federal level can have this kind of support, this kind of measure.

Why not make sure that we have it in Arkansas?

Well, first of all, let me correct one thing.

the FBI does track hate crimes in Arkansas.

You can go to their website and read the stats and the numbers are quite low.

Now let me say this.

It's already a crime to walk into a Walmart store and kill a bunch people.

The guy in Texas found that out, but they have a hate crimes law.

Didn't make a bit of difference.

George Floyd.

I'm was in a state that had a hate crimes law.

Didn't make any difference.

What happened to him there unfortunately?

It doesn't matter if you have a hate crimes law or not, it's not going to detur these kinds of people because they are motivated by something altogether different than a guy who's out here breaking some minor law.

And So what we're setting ourselves up for here in Arkansas is thought policing and that's really dangerous in my book, because we know that people can redefine what hate is and there already cases from around the country where there was a guy who he shouldn't have done this, he he was a repeat offender.

He tore down a gay flag from in front of the church, carried it down the street and set fire to it and burned it.

Well he got sentenced to 11 years for arson, but five more years for a hate crime.

Had that been an American flag, it would have been speech, but because it was a gay flag, he got hit with five more years in jail and now he's serving a 16 year sentence.

That's the kind of nonsense that comes out of some of the misapplication of these laws, and it doesn't mean that Senator Hendron is wrong intended.

I think it's very well intended.

I just think the outcome is very scary.

Senator, are we punishing thoughts rather than behaviors you know, as as I was looking at the the measure, we know that there are penalties for bias based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, enhanced punishments for crimes committed against the homeless, the disabled members of the armed forces.

That almost sounds like we're talking about the entire community.

So what say you to what?

Mr Cox is that if we already have measures on the books in order to deal with people who commit crimes?

Then Y get into this other state of affairs.

Well, this is one of the frustrating things about this bill, and the reason that it's failed so many times in the past in Arkansas.

Just like a lot of bills, we tend to end up arguing what it does not do.

There is absolutely no way you can say any provision of this proposed legislation would allow policing of thoughts.

It only provides an enhancement for a criminal act, and it only provides the example of 11 to five more years.

Absolutely impossible.

Under this draft, it only provides for up to a 20% enhancement of somebody who has already violated a criminal act.

And it sends a very clear statement again to people that in Arkansas, if you're going to commit a criminal act against somebody.

Because they're different because you just disagree with their lifestyle.

If you're gonna go from thought to a criminal act, then we is a state are going to have the potential to enhance that because we do not want hate to grow into criminal acts.

Again, the idea that we're going to police.

People say what people think.

What preachers can preach.

Is absolutely false and it's a red herring.

This phone up in this debate every single time read what the legislation proposes.

Did you violate a criminal law?

You are already a criminal because of an act that you have done and the prosecutor can prove that you did it be cause you were targeting somebody for one of these categories that you mentioned specifically.

Princess Jerry mentioned the guy who drove 1100 miles to South Texas to murder people.

What he didn't mention is that guy had written in a manifesto that I'm going down there with the specific intent to kill Mexicans.

Now you can argue that, well, the crime murdering the penalty is sufficient already, but we're not just talking about murder, we're talking about the song.

We're talking about.

Vandalism were talking about sending a message that if you're going to go out and target someone with an assault because you don't agree with their lifestyle or their race or their sex.

That's especially heinous, and what we tolerate in Arkansas.

Mr.

Cox, and wondering if you could just say briefly, you may not have had an opportunity to read the entire proposal, but is there anything OK?

So based on your views, but recognizing that there may be some marriage to people who view things differently, any sort of tweaks that you think could be made to the measure to make it more palatable to you or those that you represent?

Let me say right off you read the list, the laundry list of categories people.

So what about the people that are not on that protected list?

It would seem to most people, I think that those people, if you weren't fortunate enough to make the list, then you don't have this enhanced protection that people seem to want to talk about.

And so it inherently is flawed from the very beginning.

As soon as you start putting people on their people, say, well, what about me?

What about school teachers?

I was a school teacher.

I didn't see school teachers on the list.

What about emergency room workers that get assaulted?

About news people who are targeted by crazy person.

It goes on and on and so he to your point.

It there are a lot of people on there, but there are lots of categories not on there and that is an inherent flaw in this kind of legislation.

It's unequal justice.

Well, I think those who craft the legislation would argue that some of the groups mentioned are broad enough to encompass many different cross sections of our communities.

And we've seen cases in other states where those who most may have thought at the beginning were not a part of it, were able to use those statutes to their benefit.

I'm wondering, just final thoughts from both of you gentlemen, and the remaining time starting off with Senator Hendry.

Well, let me just assure Jerry that you are covered, as Is Everybody.

If you happen to be a male or a female, or happen to have a race or religion, it doesn't get much broader than that.

We don't have a lot of school teachers being assaulted or or crimes committed against them because of that profession.

But we certainly do have people of race or sexual orientation, or some of these other things that we back in the 60s and 70s armed forces members being stood on it.

The in the airports.

That's why some of these classes are included.

But the good news is for Jerry, for all those, it is equal justice and it's not about just necessarily the victims.

It's about sending a message to the perpetrators that we will not tolerate hate in Arkansas.

Thank you.

Mr.

Cox, final seconds.

Well, again, I wish we could pass a law that would do something about heat because it's real.

I mean there are people really be hated and discriminated against, and having a hard time.

Unfortunately, these laws just don't work.

They had not worked in any state anywhere to ever prevent a hate crime.

If a guy kills a bunch of people, then give him life soon, it's a death penalty.

I don't know if you can kill him more than once.

There's a point where you just can't punish people anymore, and so my point is this takes peoples eyes off the real problems that are out there.

The unequal justice that goes on everyday in our judicial system, police brutality, all the other things that are real problems that could be addressed.

And I fear that people are going to vote for this law and think they did something and they're gonna find out they really didn't do anything that's good.

State senator Jim Henson of gravity and Jerry Cox, President of the family council, thank you for being a part of the broadcast.

We will return in just a moment.

Welcome back the COVID-19 Corona Virus Pandemic is having an impact on political discourse.

During this 2020 election cycle as infection rates rise.

There are growing concerns in many quarters about public health and safety at the polls.

Some arkansans suggests voters should have the option to cast their ballots.

In a different way this November.

Coming up or two opinions on the issue from voting rights advocate Susan Inman and State Representative Mark Lowry.

Joining me now is Susan Inman, a former director of elections for Arkansas and a former member of the State Board of Elections Miss in men's party to a lawsuit that would make election officials abide by a decades old state Supreme Court ruling that expanded the right to absentee balloting.

Miss Inman, thank you for being here.

Thank you, it's a pleasure and I appreciate this opportunity to talk about after the voting because it seems to be the topic of the moment these days.

And I'm wondering in line with that, I'm wondering if you could tell us more about some of the concerns that you and others have that led to the filing of this lawsuit.

Well, having been an election administrator myself, I'm well aware of what goes into preparing and setting up an election.

There are a lot of moving parts and wasting time by not informing the voters that they might actually want to vote absentee and not present themselves in the polls in November.

Is is something that our County officials need to be aware of so they can prepare to order a enough ballots to accommodate the requests.

So if the request coming now.

That they will know what they need to do and how they need to prepare, not only for the mailing of the ballots, but also for the staffing of the polls or anything that may come with an upswing and epidemic at that time.

When polling places suddenly have to be closed.

Miss M and I'm wondering if you could talk more about this kind of been this blurring of the lines in media reports and Justin are discourse about absentee voting versus vote by Mail and and what's meant by the lawsuit and will it change things.

I wonder if you could educate us all for a second on absentee vote by Mail and what you hope to accomplish through this lawsuit.

Sure, I'm absentee.

Voting is nothing new.

We've been doing this for for 100 years or better since voting has been occurring in our state.

It's the only means that people can cast a ballot when they're not here, whether they be in the military, serving abroad, overseas citizens confined to a halt to their home through a disability.

But it's always been an option.

So the the the difference in Mail, all Mail balloting, or Mail in ballots is that those states that do that Mail about to every registered voter and Arkansas we have to initiate the request to ask that a ballot be mailed to us.

That that's essentially the difference that all comes by Mail both ways, so it's it's kind of like, you know whether you get it automatically or whether you have to request it.

Thank you for mentioning that you, as you may know, that the Secretary of State and his team have said they've been in communication with all of Arkansas' counties.

They say that they are ready to go with some tweaks here and there, making sure that poll workers wear mask that there is sanitized Jill and even earlier in the week at the governor's press conference there was talk of stylus that can be used not only to sign disposable stylus that can be used to sign, but also use the voting machines.

What are your concerns?

Where do we still need to be doing work to ensure that people can vote an A Safeway and not worry about contracting covid?

Right, thank you Sam.

Well, so first of all, our polling places are the locations of service polling.

Places are not required to do it.

If they suddenly decide they don't want to be there, don't want to serve, they can say sorry.

I'm not gonna be open.

The same for our poll workers who can suddenly say I'm not going to come in because I don't want to get sick so it could be a crisis like we've seen in some primaries across the country where suddenly polling places were not no longer available in long lines were waiting to vote.

So to alleviate that, or in the event that it may happen, requesting an absentee ballot will guarantee that the voter will be able to cast about in this election.

It will also alleviate any lines that come from the reduction of polling locations subsequently.

But uh, it's kind of being prepared now for then, because if if if, in fact polling places suddenly close or day or two before Election Day, you won't get an absentee ballot.

No, so it's.

It's like if you want to be safe.

You don't want to risk your life for health to go to the polling place.

Uh, it's clearly the voters option.

And, uh, there if they want to have a ballot come home, come to their home, that's that's an option that they can have.

Miss Inman, thank you for your time.

Voters need to know their rights and responsibilities.

Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you very much.

We now turn to representative Lowry, who once LED efforts to have constitutional voter ID laws in the state.

Representative Lowry, thank you for joining me.

I know, I know.

You've expressed some apprehension about tinkering with current absentee balloting process is or even what some people might think of in terms of bringing vote by Mail here.

Talk to us about some of your concerns about changing our current mode of voting in Arkansas.

Well, for one thing, we already have no excuses.

Absentee ballot balloting.

So people are concerned because of COVID-19 or whatever the reason is they really don't even have to justify.

According to Supreme Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, they don't have to justify their reasoning.

So that is one reason why the current law of will will take care of those needs.

The other is that it'll just logistically you were talking about 1.7 million dollars.

1.7 million voters in state of Arkansas.

Almost 2600 different ballot styles.

When you consider school board elections, JP races City Council races, so it said logistical nightmare, not to mention the fact that we've already seen cases around the country where Mail in balloting is has been fraudulently used and their those cases are still continuing to be adjudicated in the governor's press conference this week.

The Secretary of State talked about how.

The elections this year will look like a lot of our elections.

In the past.

There may be a few differences.

Pull workers wearing masks, sanitizing gel being there.

These new disposable stylus pins that citizens can use to touch the touch screens to mark their votes.

Hearing some of the measures that are being put in place.

Is there anything else that you're hearing from your constituents?

Things that you think we should be thinking about?

If we want to make improvements to our voting processes.

Yeah, I think all of those different provisions are are going to be significantly adequate or the deeds you know.

Arkansas does have voter ID legislation that a vast majority of arkansans support.

That is something else that also is a way to protect the integrity of the ballot when people use absentee ballots for instance, they still have to send in their photo ID.

To verify of their ability to pass that ballot so I I, I think that the Mail invalid idea is something that is overblown at as far as that need.

One of the concerns that Miss Inman addressed was that it's not just about people getting sick or a fear of the pandemic, but the concern that if rates continue to rise, many of the people who normally work at our polling places.

Our retirees, who fall within the category of those who can easilly contract covid, and what if some of those individuals don't show up to actually work the polls.

Do you think there are some additional failsafes that exist just to make sure that besides early voting, or if people adequately ask for an absentee ballot to make sure that people will actually be able to cast their ballot in the fall?

But the truth is you would be compounding that problem in terms of the necessary employees that each of the 75 County clerks would have to hire to process Mail in balance.

Did not to mention the the argument that already made of.

Frankly, I think it disenfranchises voters.

If you cannot assure that the ballot they received would allow them to vote on each and every race that is in their jurisdiction, including school board races, municipal races and and on up the line.

So I, I think the County clerks have had the ability the election commissions have the ability now looking forward to be able to.

Work on those contingencies, and I I think that the Mail in ballot ideas, one of that really is, is overblown in terms of trying to address these concerns.

And what would you say to lit against who?

Who are party to this lawsuit?

Who argue we should do everything possible to make sure that people are able to exercise their constitutional right to cast a ballot here in the state of Arkansas?

And that's why they're going about seeking this.

Redress through the courts.

What would you say to those who still may have concerns about whether or not we're up to the challenge this fall this November?

I don't think every Arkansan has the right to also believe that our elections are going to be done fairly and that their vote is going to count the same as as any other persons vote.

And you know, we really don't have the logistical abilities to be able to process Balian balance.

So it's not just an issue of whether we're disenfranchising voters who may have a concern of showing up.

We also want to make sure that we're not disinterested.

Disenfranchising other voters of making sure that their their valid is not nullified by any potential fraud.

That would be out there.

Representative Lowry, thank you for your time.

And we are out of time.

You're welcome.

I'm doctor Malcolm Glover.

On behalf of my friend Steve Barnes and the entire Arkansas week team.

Thank you for watching.

Support for Arkansas week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

The Arkansas times and KUARFM 89.