House committee advances measure expanding secretary of state authority over petition canvassers amid due-process concerns

Little Rock — The House Committee on State Agencies & Governmental Affairs voted to pass Senate Bill 209 after extended testimony and questioning about enforcement and due process. Supporters said the measure is intended to strengthen integrity in the signature-gathering process; opponents said it hands too much investigatory and remedial power to the secretary of state without court-like safeguards.

The bill directs the secretary of state’s office to investigate alleged violations of canvassing law and permits the office, upon finding a violation by a canvasser by a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, to refuse to count signatures collected by that canvasser. Representative Ken Underwood (R-16), who closed debate for the sponsor, told the committee the bill “provides notice, opportunity to cure, and presenting evidence, to the secretary of state's office” and that existing appeal routes to the courts remain available.

Opponents argued the proposal substitutes an administrative fact‑finder for a judicial process and lowers the mens rea standard for conduct that otherwise appears in criminal statutes. Dr. Gail Choate, testifying against the bill, said, “this bill denies due process on a number of different levels,” citing concerns that canvassers and signers could lack formal opportunities to confront accusations or present evidence.

Kwame Abdul Bey, elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, told members his office’s 25‑year review found just three election‑fraud prosecutions in Arkansas (two involving sitting officials) and warned the bill’s emergency clause and enforcement approach risk conflict with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent. He urged the committee to reject the measure.

Representatives pressed officials from the secretary of state’s office about how the agency would determine intent. Nathan Leach of the secretary of state’s staff told the committee the agency would focus on “intentional knowing violations” and apply the same mental‑state analysis used elsewhere to assess culpability, explaining that repeated or systematic acts (for example, signing for someone else many times) could meet the preponderance threshold while a single, inadvertent mistake probably would not.

Leslie Bellamy, director of elections in the secretary of state’s office, said agency practice includes consultation with sponsors and attempts to avoid unnecessarily discarding valid signatures: “we're not in this to just try and kick things out and make things fail. We're just getting to do it right for my division and that's why we give them that opportunity.”

Committee members who opposed the bill expressed separation‑of‑powers concerns and worries that the secretary of state could be positioned as prosecutor, judge and sole fact‑finder with no required recordkeeping or discovery processes like those used in courts. Representative Collins said the measure creates “a quasi‑judicial” process without the procedural safeguards of a trial court and warned it could lead to disenfranchisement if valid signers’ names are removed because a canvasser is later found to have violated canvassing rules.

The bill’s supporters said the proposal is meant to protect signers from being misled in the field and to make sponsors and canvassers follow established rules. Representative Underwood noted that the attorney general reviewed the bill and did not raise legal objections.

The committee voted to advance the bill. Opponents said they expect litigation if the bill becomes law, pointing to prior Arkansas Supreme Court rulings and to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that petition signing is political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Votes at a glance: committee motion to pass Senate Bill 209; outcome: approved by the committee (roll call recorded in the transcript).