Opinions disguised as facts, with a side order of mud

(This article may contain opinions by its author.)

Elections can be fought in many venues. Candidates can use roadside signs, TV/radio commercials, rallies, debates, and now social media to get their message to the voters. For the most part the recent battle for mayor of the City of Alexander was, and still is, being fought out on Nextdoor; the website that brings neighbors closer together.

In the recent General Election none of the candidates for mayor received 50-percent plus one vote. Because of that, a runoff between the two candidates receiving the most votes will be held Tuesday, December 6.

Of the total 540 votes cast in both the Pulaski County and Saline County portions of Alexander, the mayor’s race broke down like this. Crystal Herrmann received 256 votes (47.40-percent). Paul Mitchell received 228 votes (42.22-percent). Scott Chaloner came in third with 35 votes (6.48-percent). Finally, Tom "TJ" Gaylor Jr. came in fourth with a total of 21 votes (3.88-percent).

Chaloner withdrew himself from the mayor’s race in September, but not in time for his name to be removed from the ballot. Under state law any votes cast for him must still be used to calculate the percentage of votes cast per candidate.

What kind of person do you want as mayor? Based on what she has posted on Nextdoor (Joined August 26) one could surmise Crystal Herrmann does not believe in “Innocent until proven guilty” or a higher legal authority other than herself. Let’s review some of her previous statements beginning with the one that started it all.

September 27

“The current administration misused 2019 ARDOT Grant founds (funds) to pave E 4th Street that is in fact in the City of Little Rock.”

Notice she instantly proclaims the current administration “Misused” money from a grant program funded by the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ArDOT).

BACKGROUND:

A portion of a special fuel tax approved by voters is being used to help cities and counties upgrade streets and roads by funding the overlay of new asphalt. Generally a city or county can request the grant every three years.

Depending on which map you look at E. 4^th St. is either completely inside Little Rock, or a portion is in Little Rock and the rest is in Alexander. There’s even a 1980 city map that shows the boundary down the center.

When this first came up the question was raised as to who is responsible for 4^th Street. Alexander’s Streets and Parks Department Superintendent contacted officials at the Little Rock Street Department and he reported back to the city council. He said Little Rock has 4^th Street labeled as the responsibility of Alexander.

These projects are reviewed by an ArDOT engineer. The engineer inspects each street in order to write up the bid specifications. According to Mayor Mitchell, during the tour of the city Mitchell asked about 4^th Street. Mitchell says the engineer had no issue with paving 4^th Street.

ArDOT handles the bidding process, monitors construction and pays the contractors directly. That money never comes to Alexander. So, technically the “Mayor” didn’t “Misuse” grant funds.

In another statement Herrmann says ArDOT, “Missed it.” It’s difficult to “Miss” a problem when you are told about it.

She dismissed the above accounting as, “Explaining it away.” In other words, she is the final arbiter of what is true.

So, according to Crystal Herrmann, she would have never repaved 4^th Street. She would have probably never asked if it qualifies because according to her it’s a Little Rock street, which Little Rock isn’t maintaining. Our street department even cuts the grass. She would have probably stopped that, too.

October 6

“Our city has lost 5 officers to better opportunities in the last 2 months. The City of Alexander has received $700,000 in "ARPA" America Rescue Plan Act funding. You have to ask yourself why is the current mayor not releasing the ARPA funding to the Police Department? Other cities are using ARPA funding to offer sign on bonuses and higher pay rates.”

It is true five officers did leave the force. I can account for three of them. Two were hired by the Capitol Police at around $56,000.00 per year. One still serves as our code enforcement officer. The third left to fulfill his dream of teaching.

Four officers have been hired within the past several months. One is a female officer who has already gone through the Arkansas Police Academy training course. A rarity. Normally every police hired needs to go through the academy.

Since developing a benefits package that includes health insurance, dental, eye care, life insurance and retirement the city hasn’t had as much of a problem attracting applicants, as it did in the past. City policy now requires all new hires who must attend the academy, which is paid for by Alexander, to sign a contract that requires those who graduate the police academy work for the department a minimum of two years.

As for the ARPA funds, assuming all of Herrmann’s suggestions are legal it’s not up to the mayor how or when the funds are used. It’s up to the city council. Remember them? They’re in charge.

This issue, however, may become a moot point. At the city council’s November meeting Police Chief Robert Burnett submitted a proposal to use the ARPA funds to provide pay raises for the next four years. ARPA funds expire December 31, 2026. Any unused funds must be returned.

Burnett proposed pay increases ranging from a high of 26.3-percent to 6.7-percent. The new wages for the police department will have to be approved as part of the 2023 budget, which should be discussed at the December council meeting. If the plan is adopted only the additional pay will come from the ARPA account every two weeks. Current wages will come from the Police Fund as they do now.

October 7

“Alexander's current administration has not been in full compliance with Legislative Audit for many years despite the proclaimed years of municipal experience.”

True, but the implication here is that up until this mayor the city always was in compliance. That is definitely not true.

Arkansas Division of Legislative Audit has Alexander’s audits on its website going back to the year 2000. The Mayor who served before Paul Mitchell was sworn-in on January 1, 2011, didn’t let a year go by without having a bad audit. In the 11 audits available (2000 to 2010) the city was in “Noncompliance” in both the financial and court/police categories. The mayor even racked up five herself.

A review of the audits from 2015 to 2020 show a reduction of noncompliance complaints. In 2015 there are nine financial items of noncompliance and eight under either court clerk or police. By 2020 financial is down to zero and the court clerk has one. If you are going to lay blame of all noncompliance issues at the feet of any mayor then the mayor should get the credit for the successes as well.

In 2016 and 2020 the current mayor received one noncompliance item for each year. The most recent is due to the issue with improvements to the city park unintentionally being built on land not belonging to the city.

October 11

“I'm not sure the City will be as lucky with the misused Cares Act funds because it is Federal Funds and they are stricter and do follow up.”

Here’s another proclamation where she claims to know more than the city attorney. Below is a portion of an article which appeared in The Alexandrian following the January 2021 meeting of the Alexander City Council. CARES stands for Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The Alexandrian; Posted January 31, 2021:

“The Alexander City Council approved appropriating $100,000.00, which will be used to pave two city streets and buying a used bulldozer for the street department. The money comes from the $114,931.18 in CARES Act funding received near the end of 2020.”

The purchase plan was proposed during the city council’s December 2020 meeting. The article continues.

“Before spending it council members at the December council meeting asked about any restrictions on how it can be spent. At the January meeting Mitchell reported that the city attorney investigated the issue and was told there are no limitations on how the CARES Act funding can be spent.”

Maybe Ms. Herrmann can explain how you “Misuse” funding that has no restrictions.

October 12

“Mayor's are the Chief Administrative Officers and responsible for all Administrative functions. As Mayor I will take responsibility to insure that all record - keeping and accounting practices are in compliance.”

The Arkansas Municipal League (AML) publishes a handbook that provides answers to the most asked questions concerning the legal aspects of operating a municipality under Arkansas Law. The latest version is entitled Municipal Law in Arkansas FAQ 2021.

One of the Q-and-As involves supervision of the recorder and treasurer. The recorder takes the minutes of public meetings.

In Arkansas a municipality may have one of two arrangements. Either one person serving as recorder and one person serving as treasurer, or one person serving as recorder-treasurer. Whether it’s recorder, treasurer, or recorder-treasurer they are all elected positions serving four-year terms.

The AML responds to this question as follows.

“Q: Who is the recorder-treasurer’s supervisor?”

“A: The recorder-treasurer is an elected official and therefore is not supervised in the same sense as an employee. However, the council may prescribe additional duties (A.C.A. § 14-44-109). The recorder-treasurer should in general perform their duties in cooperation with other elected officials.”

So the question is, would a Mayor Herrmann rule over the elected treasurer as if they were a mere employee?

She claims she will, “[I]nsure that all record - keeping and accounting practices are in compliance.” By whose standards, hers?

And let’s not forget, as stated above, the 2020 audit did not list any financial noncompliance issues. Who gets credit for that?

October 22

“I'm 100% if they would have performed a background check on her she would not have been hired to handle money.”

The “Her” and “She” Herrmann is referring to is Melissa Anthony (formerly Melissa Ratliff). From January 1, 2015 to February 2018 Anthony/Ratliff served as a member of the city council. Starting in February 2018 she was hired as Alexander’s bookkeeper and human resources director. Later, she took on the duties of office manager.

BACKGROUND:

During the Fall Fest, held October 1 at Alexander City Park, K-9 Officer Lavrine was walking with K-9 Leo when Leo tagged a car. It’s been reported the vehicle belonged to Anthony and there was a male occupant inside. Anthony and her children were in the crowd at the Fall Fest. According to Mayor Mitchell he told Officer Lavrine he would take care of it on Monday.

Mitchell says Anthony never arrived Monday (October 3), nor did she call in. She did come in Tuesday and worked the rest of the week. Sometime during the week Mitchell scheduled a surprise drug tests for the following Monday.

Shortly after she arrived at city hall on Monday October 10, 2022; Anthony was told by Mayor Paul Mitchell he had scheduled a drug test for her and another female employee. According to Mitchell, Anthony was to wait in her car. Before the other employee was ready Anthony drove away and did not return. Mitchell fired Anthony for “Job Abandonment.”

When the news leaked out about Anthony being fired, Herrmann started filing more FOIA requests. Based on the information she received Herrmann declared on Nextdoor Anthony had “Embezzled” around $90,000.00 and Mayor Mitchell “Allowed” it to happen.

Herrmann’s comment, “[I]f they would have performed a background check on her she would not have been hired to handle money,” implies Anthony had a criminal record. Where’s the proof? Does Herrmann know more than city officials about Anthony’s past?

A search for Melissa Ratliff on the website Arkansas Judiciary shows legal cases involving divorce related issues and a lawsuit with a heating and cooling company. No criminal cases were listed.

November 7

“The current Mayor is the only candidate that is a career politician and will receive monthly payments from the city if in office for two more years.”

If any of her comments could be classified as being made up out of “Whole Cloth,” as the saying goes, this would be it. This one definitely makes me wonder who she is listening to.

Alexander does not have a retirement plan for elected officials. They are also not part of the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS).

The only other option would be for a city council to award a former mayor with a pension after they leave office. That’s what happened in June, 2012 when the Alexander City Council voted to give former Mayor Shirley Johnson an $800 a month pension; which was half her previous monthly salary. She was mayor for 20 years, before being defeated by Paul Mitchell in 2010, and served on the city council before that. Now that’s a career politician.

FINAL SUMMARY:

So, what do all these comments say about Crystal Herrmann?

She definitely doesn’t couch her statements in a manner that would indicate someone is innocent until proven guilty. If she thinks you’re guilty, you’re guilty because she said so. Is that what you want in a mayor?

She obviously believes what anyone says, providing it makes the individual she’s going after look bad. Is that what you want in a mayor?

It appears she believes a mayor has more power than they actually have. Is that what you want in a mayor?

She believes if you commit a crime today you must have a criminal past. Is that what you want in a mayor?

She assumes this administration is spending federal grant monies illegally without bothering to find out how it can be spent. Again, guilty until proven innocent. Is that what you want in a mayor?

She displays the arrogance that all our problems will be solved if you make her mayor. Is that what you want in a mayor?

What kind of mayor do you want? Do you want someone like Crystal Herrmann, or do you want a mayor who doesn’t instantly jump to conclusions, a mayor who doesn’t assume you are guilty first, a mayor who doesn’t assume they have all the answers, and a mayor who follows legal opinions from lawyers rather than deciding what’s legal on their own?

Early voting begins Tuesday, November 29. The runoff election is Tuesday, December 6. Vote wisely. The type of person you choose for mayor will affect Alexander for the next four years.

Alexander Police Chief proposes plan to buy new vehicles and increase pay

The City of Alexander Police Chief Robert Burnett presented a proposal to the city council that will allow the police department to buy five new vehicles and increase wages without using any city tax generated revenue for the next four years. The proposed source of funding will be the remaining funds in the city’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) account.

ARPA was signed into law by President Joe Biden March 11, 2021 to provide fiscal relief funds to state and local governments aimed at mitigating the effects of the CoVid-19 pandemic. The city used ARPA funds in December 2021 to give bonuses for employees who qualified under ARPA guidelines.

Chief Burnett provided council members a cost breakdown of three vehicle models.

• A Dodge Charger with a V-8 engine will cost $34,700.00. With additional equipment and decals one vehicle will cost $46,800.00.
•  A Dodge Durango SUV with a V-8 engine will cost $40,000.00. Fully outfitted is $52,100.00.
• The third model is a Dodge Durango SUV with a V-6 engine and All-Wheel-Drive at a cost of $38,500.00. Adding the extra equipment and decals runs the cost up to $50,600.00.

If the city were to choose one model and buy five of that model vehicle, fully equipped, it would cost $234,000.00; $260,500.00 and $253,000.00 respectively.

Burnett offered a compromise of buying three of the Dodge Chargers and two of either of the Dodge Durango SUVs. Three Dodge Chargers and two Dodge Durango SUVs (V-8) would cost $244,600.00. Three Dodge Chargers and two Dodge Durango SUVs (V-6 AWD) is $241,600.00. Burnett noted when the current vehicles were purchased their starting cost was around $23,000.00.

At the beginning of his presentation Chief Burnett told council members the three-year warranty on all the police vehicles have expired. And, while ARPA funds can’t be used to pay maintenance, “They can be used to buy new vehicles,” he said.

Burnett added that any current vehicle that has equipment that can be used will be transferred to a new vehicle, saving some upfront costs. One of the current vehicles will be kept for use by the auxiliary police officers.

Burnett provided a rundown on remaining ARPA funds. The original amount received was around $700,000.00. After the bonuses were paid to qualifying employees in December 2021 there is over $600,000.00 remaining.

During Burnett’s briefing on his pay raise proposal he noted that the only officers with the longest time serving the department are himself and the two other officers who joined the same year he did in 2016; Assistant Police Chief Richard Harper and Lt. Jessica Burnett. One officer has been in Alexander two years, two officers one year and four were hired this year. And, that still leaves two openings for sergeants unfilled. One of those has been vacant for about a year. The department has a total of 12 positions.

All of the city’s current officers have served in other departments. The total years of service range from Police Chief Burnett and Assistant Chief Harper’s 25 years each to one year by the city’s most recent hire.

Chief Burnett provided council members a chart showing each officer with years served in Alexander, total years of experience, the year they were hired, hourly rate of pay, annual pay, and proposed increases.

“You’ll see most of these people have zero experience,” Burnett said. “That’s because we can’t afford to get anybody (with experience) right now.”

Based on years of experience the hourly rate paid to officers ranges from $28 to $17 per hour. The current yearly pay ranges from $58,240.00 for the police chief down to an officer’s pay of $38,896.00.

The proposed increases would raise the hourly rates $5.00, $3.00 and $2.00. The proposal changes the police chief to an annual salary of $70,000.00. The remaining increases range from $49,920.00 to $41,496.00 annually based on an 80-hour two-week pay period. The total cost of the raises coming from ARPA annually would be $59,080.00. After four years the total cost of the raises is $236,320.00.

Council Member Joy Gray said she would be, “Willing to go higher on wages.”

About two or three months ago Alexander lost two officers who were hired by the Capitol Police in Little Rock. Starting pay there is around $56,000.00 per year.

Chief Burnett said the “revolving door” is still an issue.

In the past, before Alexander began providing benefits, it was worse. The city would hire an officer who hadn’t had the Arkansas Police Academy training. After graduating they were able to find another job with benefits and/or higher pay. Because the city pays for the academy training new hires must sign a two-year contract which binds them working two years for Alexander.

There was a brief discussion of instituting a merit pay system. Burnett said it’s “not fair” that everyone gets the same annual pay increase based only on how long they’ve been with the city. He noted some officers deserve more based on performance.

The purpose of the four-year plan is to spend as much of the remaining portion of the ARPA funds as possible before the deadline set by the Federal Government of December 31, 2026. Any remaining funds will have to be returned.

If council members agree to purchase five police vehicles at a cost of $244,600.00 plus the cost of the raises at $236,320.00, that’s a total of $480,920.00. That leaves a balance in the ARPA account of approximately $120,000.00.

Both of these proposals, especially the wage increases, will have to be included in the 2023 budget. Council members should get a first look at next year’s budget during the December council meeting.

In another police related matter, Chief Burnett announced the department has been approved for a grant, “Of no less than $100,00.00,” to buy dash-cams. He said they probably won’t be able to equip all the vehicles with the new system, which includes off-site storage of the video files.

Burnett said the off-site storage, which is essentially what’s referred to as “The Cloud” will give the prosecuting attorney and judge easier access to videos during trials. Currently everything is stored on hard drives in city hall, which requires the constant purchase of more hard drives.

The new system will also activate the officer's body-cam when the emergency lights are turned on.

Also at the November 21 council meeting:

Resolution specifying who can sign checks approved;

The only action item on the agenda was the passage of a resolution establishing who can sign checks and other banking documents. The new resolution lists Mayor Paul Mitchell, City Treasurer JoAn Allen-Churchill and City Recorder Sharon Bankhead. Bankhead was not included in the previous resolution. Council Member Juanita Wilson is listed as a “Secondary” signer.

The previous resolution included former city hall employee Melissa Ratliff/Anthony and Council Member Dan Church. Church did not seek re-election to the city council. His term will end December 31, 2022.

Mayoral candidate speaks;

During the Public Comment portion of the meeting mayoral candidate Crystal Herrmann asked council members to review information she uncovered based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. She began submitting the FOIA requests after she filed to run for mayor.

“Because I am running for Mayor I wanted to see the financial standings and understand the magnitude of the different departments and the revenue with the city,” Herrmann said. “I found a lot of inconsistencies.”

She noted it took “forever” to get answers to her FOIA requests.

Her initial FOIA request is dated August 19. The request asked for the following documents.

• "City Of Alexander Treasurer's monthly report for the last twenty-four months."

• "City of Alexander 2020 and 2021 Financial statements."

• "Copy of the last twelve months' city electric, gas, and water bills."

• "All credit card statements for the City Of Alexander in the last twelve months."

• "City of Alexander gas card statements for the last twenty-four-month period includes all from one company to the next."

• "Copy of most recent Inventory list Of all equipment, vehicles, real property, and structures owned by the City of Alexander. Include all the departments COIs from 2020 to current of all Alexander's equipment, vehicles, and structures. Include all the departments."

• "Copies of payroll and any other checks written to employees outside of payroll for all departments in the last twelve months."

Under the council’s meeting rules council members can not respond to anyone during Public Comment.

Crystal Herrmann will face Mayor Paul Mitchell in a runoff election December 6.

Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Alexander City Council is Monday, December 19 at 6:00 PM in the courtroom at the Alexander Municipal Complex (City Hall). The public is invited to attend.

Runoff Election Early Voting begins Tuesday, November 29

Early Voting for the Runoff Election between Alexander Mayor Paul Mitchell and his opponent Crystal Herrmann begins Tuesday, November 29. The last day of early voting is December 5. Voting locations will be closed on Saturday and Sunday.

Two other candidates in the General Election, Scott Chaloner and Tom TJ Gaylor, Jr., were able to pull enough votes away from Mitchell and Herrmann to keep either of them from receiving the required 50-percent plus one vote. Of the 540 total votes cast for the Mayor’s race Herrmann received 256 (47.40-percent) while Mitchell received 228 (42.22-percent).

Listed below are Early Voting locations and hours open. Because Alexander is in two counties voters should use the Early Voting sites based on whether they live in the Pulaski County or Saline County portion of the city. Both counties are conducting Early Voting only at their main offices.

Locations and Time:

Pulaski County

Pulaski County Regional Building

501 W Markham St.

Little Rock, Ar.

8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

Saline County

Benton Vote Center

221 N. Main St.

Benton, Ar.

8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

On Runoff Election Day, December 6, Alexander voters will be able to vote at the same locations used during the General Election. This includes both main voting locations used by the counties for Early Voting. Polling places will be open from 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM as usual.

Pulaski County portion of Alexander:

First Missionary Baptist Church

10300 Mabelvale West Road

Mabelvale

Saline County portion of Alexander:

Alexander Community Center No. 2

15115 Highway 111

Alexander

(Former Human Development Center property)

Alexander 2022 Election by the numbers

If one statement can be made about all elections that is universally true it’s that not everyone who votes, votes on all the candidates on the ballot. That’s what’s called undervotes and the November 8 Election was no different.

On the Saline County side of Alexander 513 voters cast at least one vote in the election. In the mayor’s race a total of 498 votes were cast. In the three races for seats on the city council 471 votes were cast for the Ward-2, Position-2 seat, 469 votes were cast for the Ward-4, Position-1 seat and 479 votes were cast for the Ward-4, Position-2 seat.

In Pulaski County 50 voters cast at least one vote. In the mayor’s race a total of 42 votes were cast. In the three races for seats on the city council 41 votes each were cast for both the Ward-2, Position-2 seat and the Ward-4, Position-1 seat. For the Ward-4, Position-2 seat 42 votes were cast.

As it’s already been reported, a runoff election is needed to determine who will be mayor for the next four years, Incumbent Mayor Paul Mitchell or his opponent Crystal Herrmann. A runoff is required when a candidate does not receive 50-percent plus one vote.

There’s been some discussion on Social Media over how the calculations were made to determine the percentage of votes assigned to each candidate. In September mayoral candidate Scott Chaloner withdrew from the race. Since it was too late to remove his name from the ballot, and his withdrawal was made public, some still cast votes for Chaloner. According to Saline County Clerk Doug Curtis even though Chaloner wasn’t able to win, his votes were still used to calculate the percentage of votes received by each candidate.

Of the total 540 votes cast, which includes both counties, the mayor’s race broke down like this. Herrmann received a total of 256 votes (47.40-percent). Mitchell received a total of 228 votes (42.22-percent). Chaloner came in third with a total of 35 votes (6.48-percent). Finally, Tom "TJ" Gaylor Jr. came in fourth with a total of 21 (3.88-percent).

This won’t be Mitchell’s first rodeo when it comes to election runoffs. The same thing happened in 2014 when he ran to retake the mayor’s office after losing a recall election in 2012.

In the 2014 election for mayor the total votes cast from Pulaski and Saline counties were 457. The breakdown among the four candidates was; Interim Mayor Michelle Hobbs 161 votes (35.29-percent), Paul Mitchell 127 votes (27.79-percent), Corliss "Jerry" Ball 110 votes (24.07-percent), and Farren Wadley 59 votes (12.91-percent).

In the runoff only 207 votes were cast. The breakdown was; Paul Mitchell 130 votes (62.80-percent) and Michelle Hobbs 77 votes (37.19-percent).

Let the campaigning for round-two begin.

Flag that flew over U.S. Capitol raised at Alexander Municipal Complex on Veteran’s Day, American Legion presents Mayor with plaque

Alexander’s American Legion Post 28 held a flag raising ceremony at the City of Alexander Municipal Complex on Veteran’s Day, November 11. In 2019 the flag was presented to the Post by Arkansas U.S. Senator John Boozman, in recognition of the American Legion’s 100^th Anniversary. Included with the flag was documentation certifying it flew over the U.S. Capitol. This is only the fourth time its been flown.

After raising and lowering the American Flag the MIA/POW Flag was attached and then the two flags were raised together. Handling the halyard is American Legion member and Past Commander Harold Timmerman. Standing next to him is current Post Commander Ken Farrell. Timmerman

is also a member of the city council.

After the flag raising ceremony Farrell presented Alexander Mayor Paul Mitchell with a plaque in appreciation for the city allowing the Post to use “city property” without cost. Specifically, in 2018 the city council, at the suggestion of Mayor Mitchell, approved allowing the newly formed American Legion Post free use of the Community Center (Old City Hall) for its meetings and other activities. The council has also allowed the post free use of the City Park for its fund raisers.

The plaque reads, “In appreciation of Mayor Paul Mitchell and his City Council Members. A special thank you for allowing us the use of the city property.”

In the photo (L to R) are Farrell, Mitchell and Timmerman.

Runoff for Alexander Mayor’s race December 6, One incumbent keeps council seat

Who will be mayor of Alexander starting January 1 is still undecided, since no one received 50-percent plus one vote in Tuesday’s General Election. The runoff election is scheduled for December 6.

Because Alexander is in two counties, the votes from each county are added together to determine winners of municipal elections. Crystal Herrmann received 47.40-percent of the combined votes, to Mayor Paul Mitchell’s 42.22-percent. State law requires a candidate receive 50-percent plus one vote to win.

The 540 votes cast in the mayor’s race broke down like this. Herrmann received 9 votes in Pulaski County and 247 in Saline County for a total of 256 votes. Mitchell received 22 votes in Pulaski County and 206 in Saline County for a total of 228 votes. Scott Chaloner came in third with 6 votes in Pulaski County and 29 in Saline County for a total of 35 votes (6.48%). Finally, Tom "TJ" Gaylor Jr. came in fourth with 5 votes in Pulaski County and 16 in Saline County for a total of 21 (3.88%).

The deciding factor seems to be the votes cast for Chaloner. After filing for the election Chaloner dropped out of the race over a legal issue. However, it was too late to have his name removed from the ballot. While legally Gaylor came in third, the votes for Chaloner are being used to determine the percentage of votes received by each candidate. If you don’t include his 35 votes Herrmann wins with 50.69-percent.

In the three city council races Juanita Wilson is the only incumbent to remain on the council. She defeated April Cotton for the Ward-4, Position-2 seat. Wilson currently holds the Ward-4, Position-1 seat. Wilson received 19 votes in Pulaski County and 252 in Saline County for a total of 271 votes or 52.01-percent. Cotton received 23 votes in Pulaski County and 227 in Saline County for a total of 250 votes or 47.98-percent.

Starting January 1 there will be two new members on the Alexander City Council, both winning in landslide elections. They are Gina Thomas Littlejohn for the Ward-2, Position-2 seat and Angela Griffin in the Ward-4, Position-1 seat.

Littlejohn trounced Incumbent Council Member Lonny Chapman earning 22 votes in Pulaski County and 290 in Saline County for a total of 312 votes or 60.93-percent. Chapman received 19 votes in Pulaski County and 181 in Saline County for a total of 200 votes or 39.06-percent.

Angela Griffin had a similar outcome in the vote count receiving 27 votes in Pulaski County and 308 in Saline County for a total of 335 votes or 65.68-percent. Incumbent Council Member Jeffery Watson, on the other hand, received 14 votes in Pulaski County and 161 in Saline County for a total of 175 votes or 34.31-percent.

Four candidates for city council were unopposed, three current members and one new face. Council Member Joe Pollard (Ward-1; Position-1), Council Member Joy Gray (Ward-2; Position-1) and Council Member Harold Timmerman (Ward-3; Position-1) were all unopposed. Political newcomer Tony Staton was also unopposed for the Ward-3; Position-2 seat. It’s currently held by Dan Church who did not seek re-election.

No one ran for the Ward-1; Position-1 seat including its current occupant Council Member Elizabeth Bland. Although she did not file a petition for re-election, by state law she is still considered a council member.

The position of mayor is a four-year term. Council members serve two-year terms.

 

What will an Alexander voter see on the ballot?

The mid-term election is Tuesday, November 8. Except for the Office of President; all Federal, State, County, and Municipal elections are on the ballot. In some rare circumstances, anyone running unopposed is not listed. You are, however, given the opportunity to vote for everyone who is unopposed.

Because Alexander is in two counties, some races listed below are based on whether the office on the ballot is in the Pulaski County or Saline County portion of the city. There are also two polling places listed as the nearest for Alexander voters, depending on whether you live in the Pulaski or Saline portion of the city.

Registered voters of Alexander, on election day, may also vote at ANY polling location within their county. They are all Vote Centers. The poll workers will issue your ballot according to your registered precinct.

Any text that appears in [brackets] is an editorial comment and will not appear on the ballot.

Pulaski County portion of Alexander:

First Missionary Baptist Church

10300 Mabelvale West Road, Mabelvale

Saline County portion of Alexander:

Alexander Community Center #2

15115 Highway 111, Alexander

(Former Human Development Center property)

Polling Hours:

07:30 AM - 07:30 PM

For anyone who has never voted in an Alexander Municipal Election the city has what’s called an At-Large Election. Just as any legal voter who resides in the city can vote for mayor, so can anyone vote for any of the candidates running for the city council. Council races are not limited to only voters who live in each ward.

The candidates listed in each of the races below should be in the order as they will appear on the ballot.

The political party of each candidate is designated with an abbreviation of the party’s name; Democratic (Dem), Libertarian (Lib) and Republican (Rep). Municipal races are non-partisan and the candidates are labeled as Independent (Ind).

FEDERAL

U.S. SENATE

Kenneth Cates (Lib)

Natalie James (Dem)

Senator

John Boozman (Rep)

U.S. CONGRESS

DISTRICT 2

Congressman

French Hill (Rep)

Michael White (Lib)

Quintessa Hathaway (Dem)

STATE OF ARKANSAS

GOVERNOR

Ricky Dale Harrington, Jr. (Lib)

Chris Jones (Dem)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Rep)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Kelly Ross Krout (Dem)

Attorney General

Leslie Rutledge (Rep)

Frank Gilbert (Lib)

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jesse Gibson (Dem)

Lieutenant Governor

Tim Griffin (Rep)

SECRETARY OF STATE

Secretary of State

John Thurston (Rep)

Anna Beth Gorman (Dem)

STATE TREASURER

Pam Whitaker (Dem)

State Representative

Mark Lowery (Rep)

AUDITOR OF STATE

Simeon Snow (Lib)

Treasurer of State

Dennis Milligan (Rep)

Diamond Arnold-Johnson (Dem)

COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS

Tommy Land

Commissioner of State Lands (Rep)

Darlene Goldi Gaines (Dem)

(In the Pulaski County portion of The City of Alexander)

STATE SENATE

STATE SENATE

DISTRICT 15

Charles Guidry (Lib)

Fredrick Love (Dem)

STATE REPRESENTATIVE

STATE REPRESENTATIVE

DISTRICT 79

Tara Shephard (Dem) [Since unopposed may not appear on ballot.]

(In the Saline County portion of The City of Alexander)

STATE SENATE

STATE SENATE

DISTRICT 16

Jaron Salazar (Libertarian)

State Senator

Kim Hammer (Republican)

STATE REPRESENTATIVE

STATE REPRESENTATIVE

DISTRICT 81

Councilman

RJ Hawk (Republican)

Roy Vaughn (Democratic)

Greg Sharp (Libertarian)

SALINE COUNTY

CIRCUIT CLERK

Circuit Clerk

Myka Bono Sample (Republican)

NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL

STATE SUPREME COURT

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

POSITION 2

Supreme Court Associate Justice

Robin Wynne

Judge

Chris Carnahan

CITY OF ALEXANDER

ALEXANDER MAYOR

Scott Chaloner (Ind) [Withdrew from election]

Crystal Herrmann (Ind)

Tom "TJ" Gaylor Jr. (Ind)

Mayor

Paul Mitchell (Ind)

ALEXANDER COUNCIL MEMBER

WARD 2, POSITION 2

Gina Thomas Littlejohn (Ind)

Council Member

Lonny Chapman (Ind)

ALEXANDER COUNCIL MEMBER

WARD 4, POSITION 1

Council Member

Jeffery Watson (Ind)

Angela Griffin (Ind)

ALEXANDER COUNCIL MEMBER

WARD 4, POSITION 2

Council Member

Juanita Wilson (Ind)

April Cotton (Ind)

UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES

UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES

For Unopposed Candidates

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Issue No. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Popular Name)

A Constitutional Amendment to allow the General Assembly to Convene in Extraordinary Session Upon the Issuance of a Joint Written Proclamation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate or Upon the Submission of a Written Proclamation Containing the Signatures of At Least Two-Thirds (2/3) of the Members of the House of Representatives and At Least Two-Thirds (2/3) of the Members of the Senate to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Requesting that the General Assembly Convene in Extraordinary Session.

(Ballot Title)

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO CONVENE IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A JOINT WRITTEN PROCLAMATION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE OR UPON THE SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN PROCLAMATION CONTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE MEMBERS OF THE

SENATE TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE REQUESTING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONVENE IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION; PROVIDING THAT NO BUSINESS OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE SET FORTH IN THE JOINT WRITTEN PROCLAMATION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE OR THE WRITTEN PROCLAMATION CONTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE SHALL BE CONSIDERED AT AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION CONVENED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT; REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY JOINT RULE DURING EACH REGULAR SESSION PROCEDURES FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY

SESSION UNDER THIS AMENDMENT; AND PROVIDING THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO CONVENE AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 6, § 19.

FOR Issue No 1

AGAINST Issue No. 1

Issue No. 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Popular Name)

A Constitutional Amendment to Reform Certain Measures Presented to Voters, to be Known as the “Constitutional Amendment and Ballot Initiative Reform Amendment.”

(Ballot Title)

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, TO BE KNOWN AS THE "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND BALLOT INITIATIVE REFORM AMENDMENT", CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES PRESENTED TO VOTERS; REQUIRING THAT INITIATIVES PROPOSED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 19, § 22, AND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 70, § 2, SHALL BE APPROVED WHEN RECEIVING AT LEAST SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OF THE VOTES CAST ON THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE OR PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; AND

REQUIRING THAT A MEASURE SUBJECT TO A REFERENDUM SHALL BE REPEALED IF THE MEASURE IS REJECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS VOTING UPON THE MATTER.

FOR Issue No. 2

AGAINST Issue No. 2

Issue No. 3

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Popular Name)

A Constitutional Amendment to Create the "Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment.”

(Ballot Title)

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT"; AND TO PROVIDE THAT GOVERNMENT MAY NEVER BURDEN A PERSON'S FREEDOM OF RELIGION EXCEPT IN THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT APPLICATION OF THE BURDEN TO THE PERSON IS IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF FURTHERING THAT COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST.

FOR Issue No. 3

AGAINST Issue No. 3

Issue No. 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE

(Popular Name)

An Amendment to Authorize the Possession, Personal Use, and Consumption of Cannabis by Adults, to Authorize the Cultivation and Sale of Cannabis by Licensed Commercial Facilities, and to Provide for the Regulation of those Facilities.

(Ballot Title)

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING POSSESSION AND USE OF CANNABIS (I.E., MARIJUANA) BY ADULTS, BUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT POSSESSION AND SALE OF CANNABIS REMAIN ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW; AUTHORIZING LICENSED ADULT

USE DISPENSARIES TO SELL ADULT USE CANNABIS PRODUCED BY LICENSED MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITIES, INCLUDING CANNABIS PRODUCED UNDER AMENDMENT 98, BEGINNING MARCH 8, 2023 AND AMENDING AMENDMENT 98 CONCERNING

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN PERTINENT PART, INCLUDING: AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 3(E) TO ALLOW LICENSED MEDICAL OR ADULT USE DISPENSARIES TO RECEIVE, TRANSFER, OR SELL MARIJUANA TO AND FROM MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITIES, OR OTHER

MEDICAL OR ADULT USE DISPENSARIES, AND TO ACCEPT MARIJUANA SEEDS FROM INDIVIDUALS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS THEM; REPEALING AMENDMENT 98, § 8(C) REGARDING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING AND REPLACING AMENDMENT 98, §§ 8(E)(5)(A)-(B) AND 8(E)(8)(A)-(F) WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD-PROOF PACKAGING AND

RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISING THAT APPEALS TO CHILDREN; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 8(K) TO EXEMPT INDIVIDUALS OWNING LESS THAN 5% OF DISPENSARY OR CULTIVATION LICENSEES FROM CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 8(M)(1)(A) TO REMOVE A PROHIBITION ON DISPENSARIES SUPPLYING, POSSESSING, MANUFACTURING, DELIVERING, TRANSFERRING, OR SELLING PARAPHERNALIA THAT REQUIRES THE COMBUSTION OF MARIJUANA; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 8(M)(3)(A)(I) TO INCREASE THE

MARIJUANA PLANTS THAT A DISPENSARY LICENSED UNDER THAT AMENDMENT MAY GROW OR POSSESS AT ONE TIME FROM 50 TO 100 PLUS SEEDLINGS; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 8(M)(4)(A)(II) TO ALLOW CULTIVATION FACILITIES TO SELL MARIJUANA TO DISPENSARIES, ADULT USE DISPENSARIES, PROCESSORS, OR OTHER CULTIVATION FACILITIES; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, §§ 10(B)(8)(A) AND 10(B)(8)(G) TO PROVIDE THAT LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSED SHALL NOT INCLUDE ADULT USE CANNABIS PURCHASES;

AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, §§ 12(A)(1) AND 12(B)(1) TO PROVIDE THAT DISPENSARIES AND DISPENSARY AGENTS MAY DISPENSE MARIJUANA FOR ADULT USE; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 13(A) TO ALLOW MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITIES TO SELL MARIJUANA TO ADULT USE DISPENSARIES; REPEALING AMENDMENT 98, § 17 AND PROHIBITING STATE OR LOCAL TAXES ON THE CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING, SALE, USE, OR POSSESSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA; REPEALING AMENDMENT 98, § 23 AND PROHIBITING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT, ALTERATION, OR REPEAL OF AMENDMENT 98 WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL; AMENDING AMENDMENT 98, § 24(F)(1)(A)(I) TO ALLOW TRANSPORTERS OR DISTRIBUTORS LICENSED UNDER AMENDMENT 98 TO DELIVER MARIJUANA TO ADULT USE DISPENSARIES AND CULTIVATION FACILITIES LICENSED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT; REQUIRING THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION (“ABC”) TO REGULATE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND ADULT USE DISPENSARIES AND TO

REGULATE LICENSEES; REQUIRING ADULT USE DISPENSARIES TO PURCHASE CANNABIS ONLY FROM LICENSED MEDICAL OR ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND DISPENSARIES; REQUIRING ISSUANCE OF TIER ONE ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITY LICENSES TO CULTIVATION FACILITY LICENSEES UNDER AMENDMENT 98 AS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2022, TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS THEIR EXISTING FACILITIES AND FORBIDDING ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL TIER ONE ADULT USE CULTIVATION LICENSES; REQUIRING ISSUANCE OF ADULT USE DISPENSARY LICENSES TO DISPENSARY LICENSEES UNDER AMENDMENT 98 AS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2022, FOR DISPENSARIES ON THEIR EXISTING PREMISES

AND AT ANOTHER LOCATION LICENSED ONLY FOR ADULT USE CANNABIS SALES; REQUIRING ISSUANCE BY LOTTERY OF 40 ADDITIONAL ADULT USE DISPENSARY LICENSES AND 12 TIER TWO ADULT USE CULTIVATION FACILITY LICENSES; PROHIBITING CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND DISPENSARIES NEAR SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, DAY CARES, OR FACILITIES SERVING THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE EARLIER OF THE INITIAL LICENSE APPLICATION OR LICENSE ISSUANCE; REQUIRING ALL ADULT USE ONLY DISPENSARIES TO BE

LOCATED AT LEAST FIVE MILES FROM DISPENSARIES LICENSED UNDER AMENDMENT 98; PROHIBITING INDIVIDUALS FROM HOLDING OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN MORE THAN 18 ADULT USE DISPENSARIES; REQUIRING ABC ADOPTION OF RULES GOVERNING LICENSING, RENEWAL, OWNERSHIP TRANSFERS, LOCATION, AND OPERATION OF CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND ADULT USE DISPENSARIES LICENSED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS OTHER RULES NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THIS AMENDMENT; PROHIBITING POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

FROM USING ZONING TO RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND DISPENSARIES IN AREAS NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL-USE ONLY WHEN THIS

AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED; ALLOWING POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO HOLD LOCAL OPTION ELECTIONS TO PROHIBIT RETAIL SALES OF CANNABIS; ALLOWING A STATE SUPPLEMENTAL SALES TAX OF UP TO 10% ON RETAIL CANNABIS SALES FOR ADULT USE, DIRECTING A PORTION OF SUCH TAX PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR AN ANNUAL STIPEND FOR CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND DRUG COURT PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE ARKANSAS DRUG COURT ACT, § 16-98-301 WITH THE REMAINDER GOING INTO GENERAL REVENUES, AND REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM LICENSING FEES AND SALES TAXES ON CANNABIS TO FUND AGENCIES REGULATING CANNABIS; PROVIDING THAT CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND ADULT USE DISPENSARIES ARE OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TAXATION AS OTHER FOR-PROFIT BUSINESSES; PROHIBITING EXCISE OR PRIVILEGE TAXES ON RETAIL SALES OF CANNABIS FOR ADULT USE; PROVIDING THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT LIMIT EMPLOYER CANNABIS POLICIES, LIMIT RESTRICTIONS ON CANNABIS COMBUSTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AFFECT EXISTING LAWS REGARDING DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CANNABIS, PERMIT MINORS TO BUY, POSSESS, OR CONSUME CANNABIS, OR PERMIT CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, OR SALE OF CANNABIS NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND PROHIBITING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT, ALTERATION, OR REPEAL OF THIS AMENDMENT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.

FOR Issue No. 4

AGAINST Issue No. 4

Four Issues on November Ballot

On this year’s General Election Ballot there are four Issues requesting amending the Arkansas Constitution. The titles are; “Giving State Senators and Representatives Authority to Call Special Legislative Sessions,” “Requiring 60% Voter Approval for Constitutional Amendments and Citizen-Proposed State Laws,” “Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment,” and “Arkansas Adult Use Cannabis Amendment.”

The following information is taken from the “2022 Voter Guide Arkansas Ballot Issues” booklet provided by The Public Policy Center at the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. A PDF of the booklet can be found at www.uaex.uada.edu/ballot.

The booklet provides a synopsis of each Issue and the pros and cons being argued by those who support and object to the four Issues. We are providing some of that information here.

Issue Number 1

(Referred to the people by the Arkansas General Assembly)

Title

Giving State Senators and Representatives Authority to Call Special Legislative Sessions

FOR: A FOR vote means you are in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to allow state legislators to call themselves into special session and to set the agenda for those sessions.

AGAINST: An AGAINST vote means you are not in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to allow state legislators to call themselves into special session and want the power to stay only with the governor.

Where can I find more information?

The complete wording of this amendment can be found at www.uaex.uada.edu/issue1.

What is being proposed?

Arkansas legislators have proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would give them the authority to call special meetings of the legislature (formally called the General Assembly) at any time. Currently, only the governor has that authority.

This proposal would amend Section 5 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution that describes when sessions take place. If approved, this new section would allow legislators to call a special session at any time if:

• The speaker of the House and president of the Senate jointly decide to convene lawmakers; or
• Two-thirds or more of the members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and Senate sign a written proclamation calling for the special session. This would equal signatures from 67 of Arkansas’ 100 representatives and signatures from 24 of the state’s 35 senators.

In both instances, the proclamation must include the purpose for convening the special session. This proposal also would:

• Require lawmakers to create rules for how their special sessions would operate, similar to how they adopt rules and procedures for each general session.
• Put the speaker of the House and president of the Senate in charge of determining the dates of a special session called by themselves or the legislature.
• Allow the legislature, after addressing the topic of the special session, to consider additional bills if there are enough votes to do so. (They currently can do this during special sessions called by the governor.)

What do supporters say?

• The last year has really shown us why this is so necessary and why so many people have signed on, just to be able to give ourselves an option to be what we are supposed to be, which is an equal branch of government.
• If a governor is overstepping his/her bounds with executive action powers, then the ability for the state legislature to call itself into special session would be a stop point to an overzealous Governor.
• We wanted to ensure through SJR10 (Issue 1) that special sessions remain special by requiring a higher threshold to allow the legislature to call itself into special session. We also wanted to ensure that the legislative branch had the ability to call itself into a special session if necessary.
• For me, it’s not a poke in the eye of our current governor, it’s just a way to balance between the executive and the legislative branch.

What do opponents say?

• In Arkansas, our current constitution provides for a part-time legislature that meets in general session once every two years and in fiscal session in the alternating years. I see no need for a change.
• The legislature does enough damage during regular sessions and its perpetual committee meetings. I think leaving to the governor to call a special session is just fine. If the legislature can’t convince the governor of the need for a session then we don’t have to have it – wait til the next regular session.
• This would convert it into really a full-time legislature.
• Arkansas is one of only a few states where the legislature can override the governor’s veto with a simple majority vote. This would continue the path to empowering the legislative branch at the expense of the executive branch. The governor is elected by the entire state. Legislators are elected by individual districts.

Issue Number 2

(Referred to the people by the Arkansas General Assembly)

Title

Requiring 60% Voter Approval for Constitutional Amendments and Citizen-Proposed State Laws

FOR: A FOR vote means you are in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to increase the percentage of votes required to pass constitutional amendments and citizen-proposed state laws from a majority of the votes cast on the measure to 60% of the votes cast.

AGAINST: An AGAINST vote means you are not in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to increase the percentage of votes required to pass constitutional amendments and citizen-proposed state laws.

Where can I find more information?

The complete wording of this amendment can be found at www.uaex.uada.edu/issue2.

What is being proposed?

Arkansas legislators have proposed a constitutional amendment that would increase the percentage of votes required to pass most statewide ballot issues.

Currently, a majority of votes are required for statewide ballot issues to pass and go into effect. This percentage is frequently described as a “50% plus one vote” or a simple majority.

Issue 2 proposes amending the three sections of the Arkansas Constitution governing ballot issues to require a “super majority” vote in order for constitutional amendments and initiated acts to go into effect. Specifically, Issue 2 proposes:

• Increasing the percent of votes required to pass constitutional amendments proposed by citizen groups from 50% to 60%.
• Increasing the percent of votes required to pass constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature from 50% to 60%.
• Increasing the percent of votes required to pass state laws proposed by citizen groups from 50% to 60%.

Requirements for citizen-sponsored referendums, which ask voters to decide the fate of existing laws, would remain unchanged and be decided by a simple majority of voters.

What do supporters say?

• It’s a much-needed safeguard for our initiative and constitutional amendment process. It is entirely too easy to amend our state constitution. We shouldn’t amend our constitution in some sort of willy-nilly fashion.
• The state’s lenient rules make it vulnerable to big money and out-of-state interests that would want to highjack our process and push their own pet projects and hobby horse issues.
• I don’t view this as a particularly ideological measure. It is designed to simply put some safeguards on our constitutional amendment process.
• That process is fairly easy for big money or out-of-state interests to hijack because all they have to do is spend a large sum of money in a relatively short window of time, and temporarily convince people that something is a good idea. And then viola, it’s in the Constitution forever and ever.

What do opponents say?

• This proposal would create minority rule as 40% of the electorate voting “no” would deny proposed measures.
• Between 2000-2020, there has been 1 initiated amendment that exceeded 60%. There have been 14 referred amendments that exceeded 60%. There were 3 initiated acts that exceeded 60%. The effect of Issue 2 on the peoples’ right to direct democracy is much more severe than that on the general assembly primarily due to the fact that the people have to include a ballot title that accurately summarizes the proposal while the General Assembly does not.
• Acts by the General Assembly only require 50% approval while initiated acts by the people would require 60%, making it more difficult for the people to pass an initiated act than the General Assembly.
• Ballot measures give citizens of our state the power to make laws when politicians fail to do their jobs. Don’t let politicians and special interests change the system that has served Arkansas well for the past 112 years. If they get rid of ballot measures as we know them in Arkansas, it will mean more power for lobbyists, more backroom deals, and less power for voters to decide on the issues that matter most.

Issue Number 3

(Referred to the people by the Arkansas General Assembly)

Title

Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment

FOR: A FOR vote means you are in favor of adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that prohibits state and local governments from burdening a person’s practice of religion unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

AGAINST: An AGAINST vote means you are not in favor of adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that would prohibit state and local governments from burdening a person’s practice of religion unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

Where can I find more information?

The complete wording of this amendment can be found at www.uaex.uada.edu/issue3.

What is being proposed? The proposed amendment would add language to the Arkansas Constitution that:

• Prohibits state and local governments from burdening the practice of religion in Arkansas unless the government shows there’s a compelling reason to do so and acts in the least restrictive way.
• Provides a legal claim in a court or other governmental proceeding for a person to seek relief against the government for imposing on their religious freedom.

The amendment would apply to current and future government laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, administrative provisions and rulings, guidelines and other requirements.

What do supporters say?

• Courts and opinions change over time, so the state should put forth the strongest language possible.
• The First Amendment has not changed, but the way courts interpret it has over the years. The Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment helps stop courts from reinterpreting and undermining the free exercise of religion in Arkansas.
• SJR14 [Issue 3] would be a barrier to infringements on religious freedom at the local level.
• The proposed amendment would provide a stronger protection for religious freedom because it would only have to be proven that the government was burdening religious liberty, not that it was a substantial burden.
• Measures like SJR 14 [Issue 3] simply help restore protections for the free exercise of religion. It’s just a good amendment that will help ensure that our state constitution protects religious liberty in Arkansas.
• We have executive branches come and executive branches go, and I don’t want an executive branch that changes our law. Governors have really done things to infringe on people’s religious freedoms, and I don’t want that to happen in the future.

What do opponents say?

• This proposal is redundant. We’re doing something that really doesn’t do anything.
• I think it sets us in a weaker position were this to be challenged under the First Amendment.
• Nothing in the amendment explains what remedies are available when one person’s or group’s religious liberties adversely impact the rights and liberties of other groups or people. On the contrary, this amendment sets up the potential for abuse of other people by persons claiming “free expression” or “free exercise” of religion.
• Despite public claims by its supporters that this amendment will safeguard religion from government, it does not safeguard government from religion. It will allow religion to burden the government and it implicitly demands that the government allow that to happen.
• The amendment does not permit the government to burden anyone’s religious practice for any reason, which is extremely short-sighted in cases of public health, security, order, and the protection of other rights and liberties of people in society.
• Despite public claims by its proponents that this amendment will strengthen the free expression of religion, the language of this amendment is vague and overbroad, with little guidance for how it is to be interpreted.

Issue Number 4

(Referred to the people by Responsible Growth Arkansas)

Title

Arkansas Adult Use Cannabis Amendment

FOR: A FOR vote means you are in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to authorize the growing and selling of marijuana for non-medical purposes; giving existing medical marijuana growers and sellers licenses to grow and sell adult use or non-medical marijuana; authorizing 12 additional cultivation licenses and 40 dispensary licenses for adult use marijuana; eliminating an existing sales tax on medical marijuana and introducing a sales tax on adult use marijuana; eliminating a cap on how much THC can be in medical marijuana-infused drinks and food portions; making clear that lawmakers have no authority to change the amendment without another vote of the people; and changing rules for businesses licensed to grow and sell marijuana in Arkansas.

AGAINST: An AGAINST vote means you are not in favor of changing the Arkansas Constitution to authorize the growing and selling of marijuana for adult use or non-medical purposes, or changing the related rules and regulations currently in place. Medical marijuana would continue to be legal as specified under state law.

Where can I find more information?

The complete wording of this amendment can be found at www.uaex.uada.edu/issue4.

What is being proposed? This citizen-proposed amendment asks voters to change the Arkansas Constitution to allow and regulate cannabis, also referred to as marijuana, for non-medical purposes. The proposal also would make numerous changes to add, alter or remove parts of Amendment 98, currently known as the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016.

Note: The proposed amendment uses the term “adult use cannabis” to differentiate it from marijuana used for medical purposes. This voter guide uses “non-medical marijuana” interchangeably with “adult use cannabis,” which is also known as “recreational marijuana.”

For people 21 and older buying marijuana, this amendment would:

• Make the possession of one ounce of marijuana for non-medical personal use legal under Arkansas state law for adults, while recognizing the drug remains illegal under federal law.
• Allow medical marijuana cardholders to purchase non-medical marijuana without that amount counting toward how much they can purchase for medical purposes.

What do supporters say?

• This initiative reduces healthcare costs by removing taxes from medical cannabis sold to qualified patients, and replacing it with taxes on adult use.
• Ensures that one mistake will not last a lifetime by reforming our state’s existing laws on the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use.
• Extends the medical marijuana program into a new adult use industry, with 12 new “craft” cultivation licenses issued via a lottery, which are authorized to grow up to 250 mature plants.
• People … want this, and we want to be able to provide this to Arkansans in a responsible way. That’s, I think, one of the biggest distinctions between what we’re trying to do and some of the other efforts. We understand that it needs to be regulated. For those folks who are not necessarily supporters of this, we want them to know that we’re going to do this in a responsible way. We’re going to limit the number of stores. It’s not going to be on every corner. There’s not a home grow component. It’s going to be controlled, be able to be taxed and the quality and the quantities are going to be controlled to some degree.
• This is something that is coming our way. We can either be a part of it, or we’re going to lose out to some of our neighboring states in jobs and tax revenue for the state.
• Regardless of what one thinks personally about the prospect of legal recreational marijuana, the revenue created by this ballot initiative would support general fund investments that can unlock the potential of Arkansas – in areas like education starting with preschool, infrastructure starting with broadband, and economic development starting with jobs – while supporting the state drug court program, UAMS, and law enforcement.
• Don’t listen to the people saying we should vote no because the amendment isn’t good enough. The Republicans in charge of the state will never allow an amendment that has things like amnesty for people already in jail for weed, home growing, or protection for workers who smoke. I would love to see these things happen but I’m realistic enough to see it will never happen while Arkansas is controlled by our current lot of Republicans.
• To get that many signatures from Arkansans it can’t be all Democrats, or all Republicans, or all Independents. You need a large swath of Arkansans to get that many signatures. The people want to vote on this and make this decision themselves.
• Enables law enforcement to maintain control of the black market by keeping cannabis out of the hands of minors and unauthorized growers.
• Provides regulatory oversight to keep children safe by limiting the number of licensed businesses and keeping unregulated homegrown cannabis out of our neighborhoods.

What do opponents say?

• Issue 4 will expand illegal drug use in our communities by authorizing the sale and use of drugs that are still 100% illegal under federal law.
• The proposal is too favorable to the industry rather than to the patients and consumers. The proposal will kill the medical program because cultivators and dispensaries will not provide a wide variety of strains that can help ease patients’ medical problems. Producers will be incentivized to cater to the recreational consumers and simply grow the strains that have the highest concentrations of THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis.
• The only dispensaries that will be able to sell medical are the original 40. The 40 original dispensaries will automatically receive a second license (for rec only). This leaves patients that are having to travel up to two hours to get their medicine will continue to have to drive excess of two hours. That leaves only 40 more dispensaries open for licensing. That is a small number to create competition. Not only that, but you may own up to 18 dispensaries, which would stop any competition.
• There is no provisions for expungement on criminal records, so those that have had their lives destroyed by sometimes as little as a joint, continue to have their lives destroyed while these conglomerates rake in MILLIONS of dollars.
• Giving 10% to police (while I DO support the police) sort of sounds like they are trying to BUY the police hoping a blind eye will be held for illegal dealing that may be in play.
• Issue 4 doesn’t just legalize marijuana. It legalizes any drug or chemical extract or derivative that can ever be manufactured from the marijuana plant. It’s impossible to say just how far that will go.
• Issue 4 legalizes marijuana in Arkansas, and it prevents lawmakers from enacting reasonable regulations on the marijuana industry.
• The amendment makes sweeping changes to the Arkansas Constitution. It repeals and rewrites some parts of the constitution, and it adds new language to other parts. It is almost impossible to know how far some of these changes go.
• Every drug dog within the State of Arkansas would have to be de-certified and replaced with one that does not include marijuana as a detectable substance. That alone would open the door for a mass influx of other controlled substances, such as methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, heroin, among others, into the state, if the amendment is enacted, and before the State can fund and train a whole new set of dogs for every location where a drug dog is currently in use in the State of Arkansas.
• Unlike other states the Arkansas law does not exempt hemp from the definition of Cannabis sativa. The Arkansas law would do away with the existing hemp laws in Arkansas and require that all hemp and hemp products be grown and sold only though (sic) the licensed cultivators and dispensaries.

Early voting is underway and Election Day is November 8. VOTE!