Second, support for Arkansas Week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

The Arkansas Times and KUARFM 89.

Hello again everyone and thanks very much for being with us.

Believe it or not, the first round of balloting is just around the corner and the general election is in the not too distant distance.

So how much blue can be mustered in a state that seems to be as red as red can be and perhaps about to be redder still will go to that in a moment first.

On legislative session ended and a special session soon to begin a governor with his agenda and a General Assembly with perhaps its own joining us up.

Top Governor ASA Hutchinson.

Governor thanks very much as always.

Thanks very much for being with us.

You have this.

This was a session of concluding weeks of his days of a regular legislative session or specialized legislative session that was remarkable.

Not so much for what you got as what you didn't sign.

And what came into law?

Could you put it into capsule form for us?

This is kind of a remarkable session.

Well it was, but we do have to put it in perspective that the purpose of the extended general session was to do redistricting.

That was the main purpose.

That was the focus of it, and it should have been limited to that.

But I compliment the leadership of the General Assembly because there were a lot of extraneous matters that were presented beyond redistricting, and those were killed.

They were ruled, not germane.

They were defeated.

They held hearings on, and they said this is not good legislation.

They really stopped a lot of bad bills from coming forward.

In the end I got two bills on my desk.

One of them was the redistricting bill and there was only one other bill that dealt with alternatives to the vaccine mandate, which was to provide some testing requirements on businesses, which I considered a mandate on businesses and puts employers in a bad position.

But I had to a couple of choices I could have sent it back to the legislature with my veto.

Both bills, but clearly on the redistricting.

I wanted to give them the maximum amount of flexibility.

I didn't agree with all of it, so I let it become law without my signature.

And on the other one, I knew that that would be overridden, and it would create more controversy.

And I think we had enough controversy with this session, so I let it become law without my signature.

Part of it was they defeated the emergency clause, and so we've got 90 days to sort through some issues.

And to see what the impact of that will be well from your perspective, Sir, the bills that were most objectionable to you were in fact defeated, defeated, but though it was, it was a complicated and at times messy process which suggests what between elements of your conference the Republican Conference in both chambers and and the administration and your political position.

Well, it suggests that there are differences of opinion, and you know when it comes to the redistricting issue.

I have a long history and the Republican Party, and in previous redistricting cycles we advocated as a party for strengthening the minority vote and their influence in congressional elections and so to see this plan come out, which took a different path.

And reduce the influence of the minority community in the second district.

I had problems with that from a historic standpoint in giving a voice to African Americans in the state of Arkansas in the congressional elections.

And so that's the reason I didn't sign that.

And so there's a difference.

Perhaps from my perspective of history and my view of that issue.

And and then the other one when it came to giving a mandate on businesses to require them to provide testing alternatives if they're going to have a vaccine requirement.

We're just saying we're going to answer the federal government's mandate with our own mandates on business, which is not the right response.

I believe that President Biden should not have issued a federal mandate.

I don't believe government should be issuing these mandates.

At this time, in terms of the vaccine requirements, but businesses should have the right to determine the safety of their own workplace and they and we shouldn't be telling them what to do.

And that's exactly what the General Assembly was attempting to do with that one bill.

And that's the reason I didn't sign it.

Well, let me take let's go to redistricting if we can, for a moment, governor and I think we've got a map here of a before and after or proposed.

As you note, the.

Alterations to play the division of Pulaski County by any definition reducers, minority involvement, or or.

One of my trying to say it.

It dilutes that minority population geographically.

In your estimation, Sir, is that plan defensible, legally defensible?

A challenge would it would appear to be inevitable to him.

Yeah, and and the answer to that is it might not be my preferred plan, but I think the legal challenge is problematic just first of all, because there's not that much difference is between the previous map, just in terms of the visual appearance of it and then secondly, you already had a division of the minority vote between the 2nd and the 4th District and the first district.

And this just shifted more of the minority vote from the 2nd district.

As to the 4th district, and so these are fairly minor shifts, even though any shift of minority population is significant, so I'm not sure exactly the legal approach and challenge to it because we weren't successful.

In 1990, which is now 30 years ago in a challenge to maximize the minority voting representation in our congressional election.

So I, I think that there's going to be a challenge.

The courts will hear it.

I think it's probably a close call and part of the problem is not just simply the map that was presented.

This time by Republican legislature, but it's based upon a map that was presented.

10 years ago and 20 years ago when we had Democrat control, and so it's it's a little bit hard to make massive adjustments whenever you're trying to keep congressional districts somewhat aligned to what they were in the past.

Well, there, there were some alternatives to to splitting Pulaski.

Would any of those have been acceptable to you?

Yes, there's other ways to do it.

Absolutely.

My staff drew up different maps that did not have the same dilution of minority voting strength, and so it could be done.

I don't know all the reasoning of the General Assembly as they developed this last map, but you know they had their political considerations.

They had their concerns about the population shifts and adjusting for it, but it could have been done otherwise.

But we will see where it goes from here.

Well, there seemed to be the suggestion.

Pretty broad suggestion that it was a political consideration in terms of of splitting Pulaski, as you alluded to, just that it was that the guy in your estimation was that the the the governing dynamic.

Well, first of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with splitting the vote in Pulaski County.

Sebastian County was split as well.

The previous redistricting split about 5 counties, and so we've been splitting counties as needed for 2030 years now in Plastic county.

It is the first time that has happened.

And and it wasn't my preference, but I'm more concerned not about splitting the county, but how you do it and the impact on minority representation.

That is the key.

We can't create a majority minority district that ensures that we will have a minority elected to Congress or have the best chance for it.

But it's their influence in a congressional election.

And is that best suited by making sure that there.

Have the strength in a particular Congressional District, or to divide that, and that's the argument that you're deluding it.

You're weakening that influence, and that's the constitutional issue, and that was my concern.

I think it's a close constitutional case.

We'll see how that develops on the on the matter Sir of business mandates one of the hallmarks.

It strikes me over the last four or five years is what seems to some people to anyway to be a.

A widening gulf between public policy makers, at least in the arts of General Assembly and the business community, particularly on not so much on fiscal issues, but certainly on social or cultural matters, and in this case, medical matters.

You have kind of a mix of all three there.

Would you concur with that assessment?

I would, I think there's been a divergent of views on that particular point.

You know you've got the populist part of the Republican Party.

You've got the wing of the Republican Party that is more libertarian as well, and they come in conflict with each other.

I grew up with principles of Ronald Reagan that it talks about individual freedom, but it's also.

Talks we talk about fewer regulations and constraints on business and giving the them the freedom of the marketplace.

In Arkansas.

We've always given great latitude to the employers in running their business.

Obviously you don't just discriminate, there's laws against those things.

And based on race and other characteristics.

But when it comes to the public health requirements, we ought to give the employers that it's the greatest latitude.

And not put mandates on them from the government, and that's what we just did at the state level.

Now I think they're minimal because we defeated most of the bills.

It maybe not out that out of line from what President Biden and OSHA will bring down to the employers in terms of having a testing alternative.

But that's the conflict that the employer could get in in a very short amount of time when we get those rules from the federal government, you.

You have said, Sir, that even the debate itself, the controversy, the back and forth over over COVID policy in Arkansas has not been helpful to the administrations effort or to the clinical community's efforts to contain COVID, where from here, Sir?

Well, I just want to underscore score that point that we're working hard to encourage vaccinations to give confidence in the medical community and and their advice on vaccines and health of them.

And then whenever the legislature goes, you know week to 10 days in debating vaccines and it just erodes confidence and we see our numbers flattening or even declining in terms of our vaccination and.

That's not the direction we want to go when you talk about the future, we are going to have a special session.

At least I've tentatively set a date of October 25th, but a couple things have to happen first before we bring the legislature back into session.

One is making sure we have votes for the tax reduction bills that we're going to present and that we've worked hard on.

And then, secondly, we need to have some.

Idea as to.

You know where they were going to not bring up extraneous bills outside of the call, and whether we're going to go back into debating some of the same issues that we just did in the last session.

If we have to go back and re debate vaccines, that's not helpful, and it worries me, and for that reason the call is tentative.

We've got a lot of work to do to make sure we've got a clear path to getting in and out of the upcoming special session and exit strategy.

I was going to ask you, governor, you brought it up.

How close to consensus are you?

Well, I think we are close to consensus on the tax reduction bills that we want to have.

We've still got accounts of votes, but we've got very close to a consensus on that, and I expect some announcements next week in that regard.

In terms of the rest of the ideas you've got members of the Senate that are proposing all kinds of issues that ought to be brought up in this session, and.

I think in the end I'd like to have some confidence that we can have a narrowly focused session and there will be a debate.

You can't avoid that, but in the end I hope that we have a strategy that we can not retrace everything that we just talked about in the last session, and I hope that we can narrow the agenda for this upcoming session to what I put on the call.

Some very, very important matters.

Taxes make a big difference to the citizens.

Of Arkansas, they've come through a pandemic manyama hurting financially.

This will help them and we don't want to delay that.

We hope we can get that done, but I need the help of the General Assembly to make sure we're on the same page as we go into that session to the extent we can be gotta end it there, Sir, because we're out of time.

As always, we thank you for yours.

Come back soon.

Thank you, Steve.

We'll be right back.

We are back and if anyone needed reminding the party primaries are actually just around the corner, well the latest round of fundraising reports was reminder sufficient.

And if the November election seems a year distant, that's not how the political pros measure time with us.

Now.

Jonelle Fulmer of Fort Smith, chair of the Arkansas Republican Party.

And of course, in the interest of fairness and balance, her Democratic counterpart, newly elected Democratic State Chair Grant and Neil was to be with us.

He was unavoidably attained at the last minute and wasn't able to participate in the broadcast.

He'll be on in a later edition.

Miss former thanks very much for coming on.

Keep her having me what is with the party primaries actually just around the corner.

What about seven months away from now and then they are taking shape.

It promises to be a lively primary season.

Uh, is this a primary season that will engage?

Or will it discourage?

I think it will definitely in terms of turn out.

Sure, I think it will definitely engage.

I think that people are are very enthusiastic about the candidates that they're seeing emerge, and I think that they are.

Very interested in continuing a Republican.

Control here in Arkansas and I think that they are going to definitely turn out.

Republican control.

Would seem at this juncture anyway, in all fairness to be fairly assured, but which Republicans that you see, there would seem to be a breach of sorts in recent months between the executive branch here in Arkansas.

Republican and the legislative Republican so.

Well, is there an ideological breach here?

Obviously, as Republicans we are all independent thinkers and so we all have.

I think we have a shared goal of where we're going, but we all have perhaps different views of how we get there, and so there's always going to be some conflict and some debate.

But I think that in the end they will come together and do what's best for Arkansas.

Is it a distraction though, to party building such as it is when the governor and the legislature have some fairly significant disagreements here?

Lastly, we would prefer that we all agree, but it's just not going to happen and I think especially at a time like this we know there's going to be a lot of differing opinions.

But again, I think that in the end Republicans will will unite and and will come together on whatever the topic.

Much criticism of late excuse me of the Republican General Assembly before the congressional redistricting plan that has been approved.

Pulaski County split.

Oh your response to that fair just is this power play on your party's part.

I think it is very fair if you look at the the map from 2010 that the Democrats drew.

It was very similar and in lines to the map that is drawn for this General Assembly, the.

Major difference I see is that they had five counties split and this map only has two split.

The fact that that Pulaski County is split unfortunate Sebastian is also split, which being from Sebastian County is also unfortunate, but sometimes it has to happen in Pulaski County is one of the most populous central regions, so it made sense to divide it and the way it is divided.

I think they gave very significant consideration too.

Making sure that while they could not keep the county intact, they could keep.

Areas of economic interests and industry together, and I think they did a very good job of doing well.

They did not do a very good job according to the Democrats of observing ethnic interests well.

That is, are you legally?

Is the plan therefore in legal jeopardy?

It's certainly we believe certainly is a lawful plan.

I don't think it's going to be turned over in the courts.

I think they will find that it is lawful, and but if you want to talk about.

Racial divides I would look at the map that the Democrats gave us in 2010, which divided Jefferson County, which per capita has the highest number of African Americans so.

I I don't I don't get their argument.

Well it would have deleted would have separated Jefferson County.

In fact it did, but it did not dilute black voting strength.

I mean you still had that.

You had black voting represented, didn't did not splinter black political representation.

Well I I would just argue that the way these lines are drawn and and taking these areas which are very high industry areas and moving them into the 1st and the 4th districts gives them better.

Opportunity better voices at the national level because they will have two representatives that sit on the Transportation Committee, which is very important to those areas.

They have access very.

Very dependent on transportation modes, whether it's the port, the airport, the Interstate, and I think this gives them better representation.

They don't seem to see it that way now.

They just misguided or once again, I think people always are going to have different views of things, but I think in the end they're going to see that this is beneficial to those areas.

And again, I I think that it's a lawful map.

I think it was very well thought out and I I do believe that it will be upheld at the courts.

Also have legislative reapportionment coming up correct, which is going to put it just seems inevitable that you're gonna have Republican versus Republican in some of these districts.

That the growth is just.

You know, phenomenal in some areas and the the population, hemorrhage and other errors is going to mandate would appear to mandate.

Quite likely two incumbents seeking again running against one another.

Excuse me.

Are we likely to see how much blood are we going to see on the walls?

I hope we don't see a lot of blood on the walls we have in the past head.

I know in Sebastian County the reapportionment has has pitted Republican against Republican in seats that they had held for quite some time, and it's very disappointing.

And in politics it just happens.

And with the growth shifts and the shift in in the lines, it's it's.

It's just a matter of fact, and we're just going to have to deal with it.

I know we will.

Lose a seat here or there.

We will gain a seat here or there, and so we'll just do our best to hold our majorities in the perhaps grow them legislature.

When the new districts are drawn and the next General Assembly is is seated subsequent to this one, are we going to see a Republican conference in both Chambers that is closer to the Republican sentiment now in the General Assembly, or a more moderate as represented, say by the Hutchinson administration?

Is it going to be more conservative or a bit more moderate?

I I do think that a lot of our young Republicans that are coming in are tending to be more conservative, but I believe also that we still have a large segment of our Republicans who in order to represent their district, have to be a little bit more centrist.

And we we welcome all.

Republicans and we will support them and get them through their primaries.

One of the remarkable things that we've seen in this particularly in this past session was some distance that the Republican Conference in the General Assembly put between itself and the business community.

Ordinarily, business had a significant voice policy voice in the GOP and at times the General Assembly said no, we're going to go our own way.

We had one member just say I'm tired of being pushed.

Round in effect by the business lobby.

Is there a breach between the party now and its leadership and the business community?

The corporate community?

Oh, certainly not.

We're still very strong supporters and advocates for our corporate community for free enterprise, and we support them.

And I don't think it's.

Completely a divide there.

I think that there there are times when.

Legislators will find that they can be helpful.

And times when they just don't believe they can soul and tax and fiscal policy.

They certainly are, but these were matters of cultural and social policy.

For example, abortion, LGBTQ issues.

So is there how serious is that divide there?

I don't.

I don't know that there's a divide there, there's are.

Republicans believe that our businesses should be free to enact policies that are good for them.

And then our legislators do what they can to support our platform and I. I think we will work together where we can and where we can't.

We will.

Just go or you know, go on about our business.

Oh well, you couldn't.

On COVID policy.

I mean there were there was a stark difference of opinion between the legislative majority Republican majority and and corporate Arkansas in terms of business mandates, you have the state Chamber arguing.

Leave us alone in that respect.

Let us mask.

If we let us mandate mask.

If we wish to.

I, I think that's probably the the thoughts of a lot of Arkansans.

Again, we we think that our businesses should be able to determine those things for themselves.

And I think that individual responsibility says that Arkansans should be able to mandate as they as they prefer.

One final question, are we seeing Arkansas politics and nationalized their two leading candidates for your parties?

Gubernatorial nomination both emphasize their close in this philosophically.

Anyway, to the immediate past president, are we seeing a nationalization one?

One of the candidates says it makes no bones about it.

Yeah, this is a national type.

Campaign.

Course I think that national issues affect us here in Arkansas.

I do I see that, but our two candidates just have a different approach to how they want to govern, how they want to campaign, and I don't discount that.

Uhm?

That national is affecting every state and they are trying more and more to push into our state.

I think both of our candidates would tell you that that that's a problem.

So, but I believe that in the end they will both also be very focused on what's happening in Arkansas for Arkansans and and the betterment of our economy and our.

Our homes and our families, and I think that's going to be foremost in their minds.

Jonell former chair of the Republican Party of Arkansas.

Thanks very much for being with us.

Thank you very much and come back soon.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

As always, we thank you for watching.

See you next week.

Support for Arkansas Week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

The Arkansas Times and KAR FM 89.