Category Archives: Legislature

Drinking from a fire hose to set pot rules

Elections, Health care, Legislature, Politics, State government

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

When you go to school to be a doctor or a pharmacist or a lawyer, you have to learn how to drink from a fire hose – do a lot of work and absorb a lot of information quickly while bearing important responsibilities.

Good thing that pretty much describes the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission, the appointees who will have a little more than a month to create rules for the growers and dispensers authorized by the Medical Marijuana Amendment, which voters passed in November.

The five members of the commission – which includes two doctors, a pharmacist and a lawyer – held their first get-to-know-each-other meeting Dec. 12. About all they otherwise accomplished was electing a chairperson, Dr. Ronda Henry-Tillman, a surgical oncologist, and agreeing to meet again on Dec. 20.

They agreed on that date remarkably fast, which is a good sign because the amendment legalizing medical marijuana doesn’t allow much time for fruitless debate. Rules must be in place 120 days from the Nov. 8 election, which would be March 9. But because a public comment and legislative review are required, the rules must actually be drafted by late January – in other words, a little more than a month from the commission’s next meeting.

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and the Department of Finance and Administration are drinking from their own fire hoses while crafting their own rules and regulations. And when legislators go into session early next year, they’ll be reviewing those rules and passing their own laws to alter the amendment, which they can do with a two-thirds vote. One pre-filed bill by Rep. Doug House, R-North Little Rock, would add 60 days to the timeline. But the Legislature doesn’t go into session until mid-January, and the commission and the affected agencies can’t assume House’s bill will pass.

There’s never been an issue like this in state history. As Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s spokesperson, J.R. Davis, often says, Arkansas is in the process of creating a miniature Food and Drug Administration. And let’s not forget that while marijuana is legal at least medically in 29 states and the District of Columbia, it’s still illegal in the United States of America. The only reason states are passing these laws is the Obama administration made it clear it would look the other way, but President Obama is leaving office next month. President-elect Donald Trump has said he favors medical marijuana, but his pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, is a staunch opponent.

So that means that Hutchinson, at one time the head of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, is leading a state government trying to quickly legalize a drug that’s still completely illegal under federal laws – laws that soon may be enforced again. He’s also trying to administer a program he campaigned and voted against. At least two of the Medical Marijuana Commission members also are known to have voted no.

Eighty-four of the state’s then-135 legislators publicly expressed their opposition prior to the election, though some of them won’t be returning to office. That’s almost two-thirds, and with a two-thirds vote the Legislature can change the amendment so much as to make it virtually meaningless – for example, by tacking on such high fees that few could afford the drug. But that probably won’t happen because there’s another number that will be hard to ignore: 68,505, which is how many more Arkansans voted for the Medical Marijuana Amendment than voted against it.

One other thing that’s kind of interesting about Arkansas’ passage of the amendment: If you look at the map, the states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes mostly are on the coasts and along the country’s northern and southern borders. Arkansas is the first Bible Belt state to say yes unless you count Louisiana and Florida, which probably would be a stretch in both cases.

If a conservative state like Arkansas will vote to legalize medical marijuana, then perhaps any state will next. Well, perhaps any state except Utah, home to a large Mormon population, and maybe Alabama, home of Sen. Sessions. He’s soon to be attorney general of the United States, the nation’s top law enforcement official. Did I mention he’s really opposed to marijuana?

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.

Arkansas should honor the most honorable

Legislature, Politics, State government
Statues, statue
Sen. James Paul Clarke’s statue at the U.S. Capitol, near the entrance.

By Steve Brawner

Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, said Aug. 20 that Virginia could “do better” in picking its two historical figures to honor with statues in the U.S. Capitol  than George Washington and Robert E. Lee.

Certainly, Arkansas could. Unlike Virginia, our state is honored in Congress’ National Statuary Hall Collection by two figures occupying very small spaces in anyone’s history books.

One is Uriah Rose, founder of the Rose Law Firm and a nationally prominent attorney during the latter half of the 1800s and early 1900s.

The other is James Paul Clarke, Arkansas’ 18th governor from 1895-96 who then served more than two terms in the U.S. Senate after the turn of the century. He was president pro tempore of the Senate, broke with his party to support the Panama Canal, and supported progressive legislation, including opposing literacy tests for immigrants.

White supremacy views, not a titanic figure

Clarke also, according to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, supported white supremacy. Campaigning for governor in 1894, he said, “The people of the South looked to the Democratic Party to preserve the white standards of civilization.”

We are all products of our time, but Clarke clearly doesn’t represent the best of Arkansas, and he doesn’t represent all Arkansans. The state should grant its highest honors to the most honorable.

Aside from his views on race, he is not a titanic historical figure in Arkansas history, much less American history. Certainly, he does not compare to historical figures representing other states, such as Washington or Kansas’ Dwight Eisenhower. One of Oklahoma’s is Will Rogers, while Helen Keller is one of Alabama’s. On the other hand, many states also are represented by forgotten or forgettable figures and by those who also should be replaced, such as Mississippi’s Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

Perhaps Arkansas should follow the lead of some states that have replaced statues in recent years. California swapped one of its statues for President Reagan in 2009. Michigan honored President Ford with a statue in 2011. Arizona enshrined Sen. Barry Goldwater in 2015. In 2016, Ohio replaced one of its own white supremacists with Thomas Edison, paying the sculptor $80,000 for the job.

Replacing a statue would require an act of the Legislature. It also would require funding.

I’m doubting Clarke would have many defenders. The controversy would involve paying for the new statue and, of course, deciding who to pick.

Who instead?

According to the 1864 law establishing the collection, the statue must honor a deceased person. Some off-the-top-of-my-head suggestions would be:

– Hattie Caraway, the nation’s first female senator.

– Daisy Bates, civil rights leader and mentor to the Little Rock Nine as they integrated Central High School.

– Johnny Cash, famous country singer.

– Sam Walton, founder of Walmart.

The selection would not have to enjoy universal support. Not every Californian is a Reagan fan, and even Edison has his detractors because of his sometimes ruthless business practices. But the statue must honor someone historically important, clearly tied to the state, and recognizable. It should be someone of whom Arkansans could say, “We had the only one of these, and you didn’t.”

History changes as our lenses get longer. Those who seem important today can be forgotten tomorrow. Some should be forgotten. And some really weren’t that memorable to begin with.

Arkansas should find someone else to represent the state. Who would you pick?

© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

From only one party to mostly one party

Legislature, Politics, State government

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

They say it’s always darkest before dawn. After this year’s election, and the days afterwards, Democrats in Arkansas have to be wondering if they’ve reached that point, or if it’s still only about 3 a.m.

Republicans, of course, won the presidential election in Arkansas, easily won the U.S. Senate race, and were re-elected in all four congressional races, three of which didn’t even produce a Democratic opponent.

As of the morning after the election, Republicans had picked up nine seats in the state House of Representatives, giving them 73 out of 100, and two seats in the Senate, giving them 26 out of 35. In 2008, Democrats controlled 102 of the 135 seats.

For Democrats, that was pretty dark. Then, the day after the election, one of their own, Rep. Jeff Wardlaw of Hermitage, switched parties, and on Nov. 22, another Democrat, Rep. David Hillman of Almyra, switched as well. Republicans now have 75 of the 100 House members – a three-fourths supermajority allowing them to pass all appropriations bills without having to worry about Democratic objections, and they’re one short of having that same majority in the Senate. Another Democratic legislator is seriously considering switching.

Bluntly speaking, what’s happening in Arkansas is what’s already happened throughout the South: Rural white Democrats are disappearing at the state and national levels. With a dwindling number of exceptions, the Democrats remaining in the Legislature increasingly represent urban areas, or they are minorities representing districts with large minority populations.

Those remaining rural white Democratic legislators know they are faced with three choices, which sometimes are spelled out explicitly to them by Republicans in power: Switch parties so they can stay in office; decline to run again and leave office gracefully; or stick with their party and probably lose if they have a decent Republican opponent. Six Democratic incumbents chose that last option this year, and they lost.

The vestiges of 150 years of Democratic dominance will take a while to reverse. Democrats still control a majority of all partisan elected offices thanks to their strength at the county level. Those offices will turn over more slowly because they aren’t term-limited and because county officials have staying power. Democrats are pouring resources into their county committees because they know it’s where they are still strong.

But Republicans are making gains at the county level, too. According to numbers supplied by the Republican Party of Arkansas, this election Republicans picked up seven county judges’ seats to reach 25 out of 75, and nine sheriff’s offices to reach 21, with another candidate in Hot Spring County still to face an independent in a runoff. The party increased its number of justices of the peace from 248 to 295. Republicans now control almost 39 percent of all partisan offices in Arkansas, excluding surveyors and constables. In 2010, they controlled 11 percent.

For Republicans, this might be too much of a good thing. They’re not going to turn anybody away, of course, but party discipline is easier to enforce with a small majority of party loyalists than with an overwhelming majority that includes ex-Democrats.

Democrats, meanwhile, must figure out some way to appeal to culturally conservative Arkansans despite their national party moving in the other direction. Rep. Michael John Gray of Augusta, who says he’s running for the party chairmanship in March, said Democrats must focus on “kitchen table” issues, rather than more controversial “coffee shop” ones, and reclaim the spirit that existed when Roosevelt Democrats were seen as offering hope to the common man.

In the meantime, let’s all hope both parties expand their bases – certainly past geography and most certainly past race. One hopeful sign is that the newly elected county judge in Washington County, home to Fayetteville and Springdale, is Joseph Wood, a Republican and an African-American.

For much of Arkansas’ post-Civil War history, Democrats weren’t just a majority party but practically the only one. During those years, Arkansas was less a one-party state than a no-party state.

Republicans will not reach that point, but at the state and national levels, they are dominant and becoming more so. Democrats ran things for a century and a half. How long will this realignment last? Hard to tell, because the Republican era is just now dawning.

Arkansas Democrats get small win in tough week

Elections, Legislature, Politics, State government

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Arkansas Democrats had a terrible week and then a good couple of hours.

The week was terrible for them for a lot of obvious reasons. On Tuesday, Republicans easily won all five of the contested congressional races, only two of which featured a Democratic challenger. At the State Capitol, Republicans increased their majorities by two in the Senate and seven in the House – then by another in the House on Wednesday when third term Rep. Jeff Wardlaw of Hermitage switched parties from Democrat to Republican.

The election’s one bright spot was supposed to be the presidential race. So much for that.

Republicans now occupy 100 of the Legislature’s 135 seats – 74 in the 100-member House and 26 in the 35-member Senate. In 2008, Democrats controlled 102 of the 135 seats.

At the state and national levels, Arkansas Democrats are fast becoming less a minority than a remnant. After a century and a half of one-party Democratic rule, Arkansas looks poised to be dominated by Republicans for decades, if not longer.

Then last Thursday, Democrats won a satisfying little victory when House members selected their committee assignments. There are 10 committees in the House – five more important “A” committees and five “B” committees – and Democrats thought they might could gain a majority on one of the A committees if they played their cards right. They did.

The way it works is that the members divide up by the four congressional districts and meet at the same time in different locations, Republicans and Democrats together, and choose their committees one at a time based on seniority. Early in the process, Democrats saw an opportunity to gain a majority on the Revenue and Taxation Committee. Texting each other across the different meeting rooms, they began selecting that committee. Before Republicans could organize to stop them, they had gained an 11-9 majority.

The move meant that Democrats are virtually nonexistent in the other committees, where the partisan breakdown is 17-3 in Education; 16-4 in Judiciary; 16-4 in Public Health; and 16-4 in Public Transportation. But they now have a majority in the committee through which tax cuts travel, or are supposed to travel.

And that might be kind of important, considering one of Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s stated goals is a $50 million tax cut. By controlling that committee, Democrats at least have a seat at the table in deciding who benefits most from that tax cut – lower-income working families, perhaps, instead of higher-income earners. Or perhaps they can use their majority as a bargaining chip for one of their other priorities, such as expanding access to pre-kindergarten classes.

Time will tell how much of an effect their gambit accomplishes. There’s only so much you can accomplish when you’re outnumbered 74-26. Speaker of the House Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia, names committee chairs and can select a Republican to chair Revenue and Tax, just as he selected a Democrat, Rep. Joe Jett, D-Success, to chair it when Republicans had a majority. If Republicans want to play hardball, they can change the rules or just ram a tax cut through a different committee. Or they could just let the Democrats have this one. Some Republicans aren’t so sure the state needs much of a tax cut, anyway.

For the foreseeable future, this is the kind of thing Democrats will have to do if they want to remain relevant because it’s going to be tough for them to win at the state level outside of the Delta, Little Rock and Fayetteville. In many parts of the state, Democratic-leaning candidates will have to do what Republican-leaning candidates used to do, which is run for office as a member of the other party. Or they can run as Democrats and lose in hopes of building the party to fight another day – perhaps one a long way off.

Regardless, they’ll have to content themselves with the notion that there are more important things than numerical majorities. They’ll have to use their position to advance their favored legislation knowing many voters probably won’t give their party’s candidates a chance as long as they have a “D” by their names.

It’s not necessarily fair, but it’s how Republicans had to operate for 150 years, and it wasn’t fair then, either.