Nay, we say

Shifty move helps bill escape committee

Trickery sometimes works, but it’s no way to build trust or a culture free of ethical questions.

The state now has a version of hate crimes legislation as of Wednesday, when Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed legislation creating Act 681. The legislation isn’t called a hate crimes bill by either its supporters or its detractors. It’s sponsors preferred to call it a “class protection” bill, but its introduction came in response to a months-long push for hate crime legislation from some advocacy groups and lawmakers.

Before the legislative session was ever called to order, Sen. Jim Hendren of Sulphur Springs promoted passage of a hate crimes bill so that Arkansas might avoid being the last state in the Union to lack one. It already was among the last three states that didn’t have one. The fatal flaw in Hendren’s version, it turns out, was its specific protections for LGBTQ people. Republican lawmakers just couldn’t stomach a measure that might be construed as providing special rights or protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. They didn’t want to explain that back in their home districts.

So House Speaker Matthew Shepherd, Senate President Pro Tempore Jimmy Hickey and others pressed for a different version, the so-called class protection bill that creates, according to them, increased prison terms for those proven to have targeted anyone in a “recognizable and identifiable group.” Under Act 681, one conceivably might be punished more if a prosecutor can prove targeting of, say, a member of the military, a mosque or a Boy Scout troop.

Critics, though, wanted specific language naming the groups or characteristics that have historically been targeted for violence, such as race, sexual identify, religion, etc. They’ve called the class protection bill a “sham.”

The most difficult challenge of getting a bill passed in the Legislature is often said to be getting it out of committee, and Hendren’s legislation never stood a chance. It has gone nowhere in this session.

It turns out, though, that the class protection bill wasn’t a shoo-in, either. Last week, the voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee was divided. Typically in such cases, any committee member can call for a roll-call vote in which each member’s position is clearly heard and recorded. In the case of this bill, Chairwoman Carol Dalby of Texarkana heard the divided voice vote, ruled the “ayes” won and quickly gaveled the meeting to a close as some committee members asked for the roll-call vote.

It was legislative trickery, seemingly premeditated. It was an abusive use of a committee chairmanship to ensure nothing might sidetrack a piece of legislation the House speaker stood behind. It was a slimy way to get the measure out of committee to the House, which favored it 65-26.

It’s likely a traditional hate crimes bill never stood a chance with this Legislature, so Act 681 is better than nothing. It will be interesting to see if prosecutors embrace it and use it in a manner that matters.

But the way it got to the House floor was all-out trickery that builds more distrust for the legislative process.