A E T N Logo P B S logo
Support the Programs You LoveDONATE NOW

Arkansas Week May 16, 2014

Loading the player…

(Same-sex) Gay and lesbian marriage in Arkansas, it's the Supreme Court's case. (Fallout) It's a case filled with political implications, for candidates in all three branches. (Senate) An issue in another race suddenly isn't, at least to the nominee… (Judges) …and the same court that's hearing the same-sex case ends the suspense in another.

TRANSCRIPT

HELLO AGAIN EVERYONE. THANKS FOR JOINING US. WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH OF COURSE SAME SEX MARRIAGE. ONE WEEK AGO CIRCUIT JUDGE CHRIS PIAZZA OF ARKANSAS STRUCK DOWN THE STATUTORY BANS ON GAY MARRIAGE AND THEN STRENGTHENED RULING ON THURSDAY. BOTH TIMES HE DECLINED TO STAY THE FINDINGS PENDING TO THE SUPREME COURT WHICH THE CASE NOW RESTS. TO CONSIDER THE PROCEDURES AND THE PRECEDENT, ALL OF IT. KENNETH GALLANT PROFESSOR FROM UALR BOWEN SCHOOL OF LAW. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

IT'S ALL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. WE AS LAYMEN ASSUME THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT AT THIS POINT. IT TOOK A WHILE TO GET THERE BUT NOW IT'S ALL FAIRLY IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT.

NOW THE COURT HAS SET A NOON DEADLINE I THINK FOR BRIEFS TO BE FILED BY BOTH SIDES BY A MATTER OF A STAY. WITH THAT IN MIND IS A STAY LIKELY LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER STATES?

I THINK A STAY IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHETHER IT WILL OR WON'T BE ISSUED. WHAT YOU SAW? JUDGE PIAZZA'S OPINION WAS THE STATEMENT THAT A STAY COULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE THEIR RIGHT TO MARRY WILL BE FURTHERED DELAYED.

PLAINTIFFS BEING GAY COUPLES SEEKING TO --

THAT'S RIGHT, OR TO HAVE THEIR OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES RECOGNIZED IN ARKANSAS. THERE'S AN ISSUE WHICH IS SOMETIMES CONSIDERED IN STATE PETITIONS -- IN FACT CONSIDERED REGULARLY AND THAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PARTIES SEEKING THE STAY PREVAILING ON APPEAL. I DON'T THINK JUDGE PIAZZA DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THAT, AND THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT MIGHT CONSIDER THAT AS WELL AS THE INJURY TO THE PARTIES.

THE COURT CAN TAKES IT OWN MEASURED GOOD TIME --

YEAH.

IN A DECISION.

THAT'S RIGHT. APART FROM THE STAY THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE MATTERS, OR TO SIMPLY GO IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND TAKE AS LONG AS IT NEEDS TO REACH A DECISION, AND FREQUENTLY IN CONTROVERSIAL CASES THE JUDGES -- IT'S REALLY HARD TO PREDICT BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE JUDGES WILL WANT TO LAY THE CONTROVERSY TO REST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. OTHER TIMES THEY WILL WANT TO SPEND TIME CRAFTING THEIR OPINIONS ON THE ISSUE AND MAKING SURE THAT WHAT'S WRITTEN IS THE BEST THAT IT COULD POSSIBLY BE, AND THEN SOMETIMES IT TAKES MORE TIME.

IT WOULD SEEM UNLIKELY THAT THE COURT WOULD DECIDE THE MATTER OF A STAY LET'S SAY BEFORE MONDAY AFTERNOON AT THE LATEST. IT COULD BE IT AT 1230 AFTER THE NOON DEADLINE, WHATEVER THE COURT WISHES, BUT IN THE INTERIM THERE WERE SIX DEFEND COUNTIES NAMED IN THE SUIT. IN THE INTERIM WHAT ARE THE RESPONDS OF THE -- RESPONSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF THE ORDER?

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ORDER WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT THERE IS AN INJUNCTION FORBIDDING THE COUNTY CLERKS TO RECOGNIZE THE STATUTES AND THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT THE JUDGE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FORBIDDING THE COUNTY CLERKS TO OBEY THOSE, AND THEREFORE IT WOULD APPEAR AS TO THOSE SIX THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO THOSE COUPLES WHO QUALIFY UNDER BOTH ARKANSAS' PREVIOUS LAW AND UNDER THIS RULING, AND THERE YOU ARE.

THOSE -- AT LEAST THOSE SIX -- WOULD THEY BE SUBJECT TO SANCTION IF THEY FAILED TO DO THAT?

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING IF YOU FAIL TO OBEY A COURT ORDER YOU CAN BE BROUGHT IN CONTEMPT. A PERSON WHO FAILS TO OBEY A VALID INJUNCTION -- THE OTHER PARTY CAN COME IN AND SAY "YOU'RE IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT".

AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT WERE SIX COUNTIES AND THAT LEAVES 69 OTHERS. WHAT IMPACT IF ANY DOES JUDGE PIAZZA'S RULING HAVE IN THE CASE?

IN MY VIEW, AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME CONTROVERSY ABOUT THIS. IN MY VIEW IT DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRE ALL OTHER COUNTIES TO OBEY THIS ORDER. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING YOU HAVE THE -- THE CLERKS IN EACH COUNTY AS INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED POLITICAL PEOPLE BY MAKING ONE COUNTY A DEFENDANT YOU -- OR ONE COUNTY CLERK A DEFENDANT YOU DON'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTY CLERKS DEFENDANTS, AND THIS FOR EXAMPLE IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT WOULD WANT TO RULE QUICKLY ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT THE OTHER 69 SHOULD DO.

AND JUST TO NARROW IT SHOULD JUDGE PIAZZA BE UPHELD ON THE MERITS THEN YOU HAVE 75 CLERKS.

WELL, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING -- AGAIN IT ONLY GOES TO THOSE SIX CLERKS, BUT ONCE THE STATE SUPREME COURT RULES ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES IN THE LAW IN VARIOUS COUNTIES, AND SO EVERY COUNTY CLERK SHOULD ABIDE BY THE LAW OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF STATE WIDE JURISDICTION, SO AT THAT POINT IF A COUNTY CLERK DID NOT OBEY THE STATE COURT RULING THEN ANYONE -- YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEONE IN THAT COUNTY BRINGING A LAWSUIT, AND IT WOULD BE EASY TO WIN BECAUSE THE STATE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE LAID DOWN THE LAW FOR THE WHOLE STATE.

DECLARATORY -- YEAH, WELL, AND THIS. WHAT IF THE SUPREME COURT SAYS NO. JUDGE PIAZZA IS WRONG. THIS IS THE LAW OF THE STATE. WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE MARRIAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED -- SAME SEX MARRIAGE PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE RULING?

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND IMPORTANT QUESTION NATIONWIDE AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED ANYWHERE BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR YOU HAVE PEOPLE MARRIED, BUT YOU SEE RANDOMLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE WHETHER I'M MARRIED OR NOT. IT TAKES A WHILE FOR THESE THINGS TO COME UP. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO WAS IN ONE OF THESE MARRIAGES APPROVED LAST WEEK. ONE PARTNER GETS OLD AND DIES, AND YOU HAVE A FIGHT BETWEEN THE SURVIVING SPOUSE AND LET'S SAY SOME CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED SPOUSE AND THEY WILL ARGUE WHETHER THE MARRIAGE WAS VALID --

EVER VALID.

YEAH. AND YOU COULD ALSO HAVE A SITUATION WHICH MIGHT COME UP QUICKER WHERE A MARRIED COUPLE WENT TO GET STATE BENEFITS AND WERE TOLD NO YOU ARE NOT MARRIED BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THE ANTI-SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS ARE VALID, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THIS -- A LAWSUIT OVER WHETHER THAT WAS A VALID MARRIAGE.

AND FINALLY THIS. ADVOCATES OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE POINT TO -- I THINK THERE ARE NOW 18 STATES INCLUDING ARKANSAS -- TENTATIVE STILL, AND SAY THAT LEGAL -- THE MOMENTUM SEEMS TO BE ACROSS THE COUNTRY SEEMS TO BE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE. YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

THERE IS THE OLD JOKE FROM MR. DOOLEY THAT THE SUPREME COURT FOLLOWS THE ELECTION RETURNS AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT'S SO. SOME PEOPLE PARTICULARLY THINK THAT IS SO IN STATES WHERE JUDGES ARE ELECTED. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I BELIEVE THAT. I THINK THAT JUDGES IN GENERAL FOLLOW THEIR HONEST VIEWS OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS, WHAT IT MEANS, AND WHO IT APPLIES TO, AND I WILL TELL YOU I CANNOT PREDICT HOW THIS WILL COME OUT IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT OR IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, BUT ONE THING I CAN SAY MOMENTUM MAY HAVE THIS EFFECT. WITH ALL OF THESE RULINGS IT SEEMS TO ME QUITE LIKELY THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS ON THE FEDERAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION GRANTS A RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE EITHER AS A MATTER OF LIBERTY UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR AS A MATTER OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE WE'RE OUT OF TIME. KENNETH GALLANT FROM THE BOWEN LAW SCHOOL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

AND BACK WITH OUR ROUNDTABLE NOW. JACOB KAUFMANN JOINS US FROM KUAR CENTRAL ARKANSAS, STEVE BRAWNER AN INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST AND HAL BASS POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT AT OUACHITA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY. GENTS THANKS FOR COMING IN. WE SHOULD NOTE SINCE THE CONCLUSION OF OUR INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR GALLANT THE SUPREME COURT AMENDED ITS ORDER. INSTEAD A MONDAY NOON DEADLINE IN THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE CASE IT MOVED IT BACK TO 2:00 P.M. FRIDAY WHICH MEANS WE WILL BE SPECULATING BY THE TIME THIS PROGRAM REACHES THE AIR. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL RULE BUT MOVING BACK STRONGLY SUGGESTS THERE WILL BE A RULING ON FRIDAY. HAL LET'S START WITH YOU. THIS IS A POLITICAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, LEGAL STORY UNLIKE MOST WE HAVE SEEN.

YES. IT'S ONE THAT PLAYED OUT WITH LOTS OF TWISTS AND TURNS OVER THE PAST WEEK IN PARTICULAR AND HEADING TOWARDS A SUPREME COURT DECISION SOON, SOONER THAN LATER HERE, AND THE LARGER QUESTION THEY THINK IS COMING OUT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ROLE AND STATUS OF JUDICIAL POWER IN A DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM AND HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN REACTING TO LAWS AND AMENDMENTS OF THE LIKE THAT COME THROUGH THE POPULAR SYSTEM.

YEAH, STEVE.

YOU KNOW WHEN YOU PASSE LAW THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE THERE IS A TIME WHEN THAT LAW WILL TAKE EFFECT, USUALLY MONTHS IN ADVANCE, OR THERE'S AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND YOU CAN SEE THE POLITICAL WINDS FLOWING AND PEOPLE CAN PREPARE WEEKS OR MONTH NECESSARY ADVANCE. WITH THIS YOU HAD A RULING AND NOW THE LAW IS DIFFERENT AND NO ONE KNOW WHAT IS IT IS AND FOR THE PAST WEEK WE HAVE SEEN TOTAL CHAOS WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. AND CLARKS -- IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR TO PROVIDE A LICENSE TO SOMEONE IMPROPERLY BUT YET THEY CAN BE HELD IN CONTEMPT IF THEY DON'T DO THIS AND IT WAS A AN AWKWARD SITUATION AND WE'RE STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND IT'S A GOOD WAY EITHER WAY FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE SO WE CAN GET CLARITY ON THIS.

JACOB IT SEEMS THERE WILL BE SOME GUIDANCE ANYWAY WITH A STAY FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

THE CHAOS GOES TO THE LEGALITY OF WHAT THE CLERKS WANT TO DID FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL WELL BEING BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT IN THE OTHER COUNTIES AND THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CHANGES TO THE FORMS IN THE SOFTWARE, BUT YEAH I GUESS WE WILL SEE WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO IN THE NEXT DAYS BUT IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE HOW FAR PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT JUDGE'S POWER CAN EXTEND.

YEAH IN THE CASE OF THE SIX NAMED DEFENDANT COUNTIES IT WOULD APPEAR IN THE MAJORITY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS OUT WEIGHED LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

RIGHT.

ANYWAY AND WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER STORIES TO TOUCH AND THAT IS STILL WITH THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT. THE JUSTICES TO THE -- I MUST SAY TO THE SURPRISE OF NO ONE CLEARED THE WAY FOR SEVERAL OF THE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS TO REMAIN ON THE BALLOT AND SEEK NOMINATION JACOB.

YES. THAT RULING INCLUDED JUDGE FOX AND FOSTER AND ANGELA BIRD AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR A MONTH OR SO. THERE WERE 60 JUDGES THAT FAILED TO PAY THE DUES FOR THE LICENSES AND THIS RULING REAFFIRMS LOWER COURTS THAT FAILURE TO PAY IS NOT TAD AMOUNT TO SUSPENSION OF YOUR ACTUAL LICENSE THAT IS PREVENTING FROM SEEKING OR HOLDING OFFICE BUT THERE WAS DISSENT IN THERE THAT USED WORDS LIKE "ABSURD" AND "LUDICROUS" AT THE RULINGS AND IF DON'T PAY FOR THE LICENSE TO BE A LICENSE THEN HOW CAN YOU PRACTICE LAW? BUT YOU KNOW AS WE WERE DISCUSSING LAST WEEK HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THEY DISQUALIFY THE MAJORITY OF THE BALLOT?

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHAOS BUT IN SERIOUSNESS WE'RE DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BUREAUCRATIC RULE THAT HAS A PROCEDURAL ASPECT TO IT AND SUBSTANTIVE IMPLICATIONS HERE AND ONE IS NOT PAYING THE LICENSE FEE IS NOT TAD AMOUNT TO BE DISQUALIFIED TO PRACTICE LAW AND SERVE AS A JUDGE. IT'S SIMPLY A CLERICAL ISSUE AND RESOLVED GOING FORWARD.

AND HAVE THE DUE PROCESS TO RELY ON.

HOYT PURVIS SAID SOMETHING "EVEN THOUGH IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE THE DETAILS OF THE FINES AND DUES ARE SOMETHING THAT JUDGES STRESS ON THE PEOPLE THEY TALK TO BUT NOT ENTERTAINING IT THEMSELVES" SO I GUESS THE LESSON IT'S AWKWARD AND EMBARRASSING.

AND AS YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE CURT EXCHANGES IN A COUPLE OF THE OPINIONS.

IT REQUIRED SPECIAL JUSTICES SERVING IN THIS CASE.

THREE IN FACT.

WELL, I GUESS THAT SPEAKS TO HOW PERVASIVE THAT PROBLEM WAS WITH THE HIGHEST ECHELONS WITH THE JUDICIARY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, PEOPLE SEEKING OFFICE.

WELL, TO TAKE THAT AND GO BACK TO THE SAME SEX CASE THIS IS THORNY FOR THE COURT BECAUSE AT -- WELL, AT LEAST THREE OF THE JUSTICES ARE WIDELY BELIEVED TO HAVE AMBITIONS EITHER TO BE CHIEF OR EVENTUALLY SEEK ANOTHER POLITICAL OFFICE. STEVE, DIFFICULT FOR THEM ON A POLITICAL BASIS?

WELL, BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE ELECT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES NONE OF US VOTERS KNOW HOW TO VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE. THEY CAN'T SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WHEN ELECTED OR HOW THEY WOULD RULE ON ISSUES. WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE RESUMES AND IF WE LOOK THEIR COMMERCIALS. BECAUSE OF THAT A LOT OF THE VETTING PROCESS FOR THIS KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE LEGAL COMMUNITY. THAT'S HOW WE END UP WITH THESE CANDIDATES IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THEIR MONEY COMES FROM AND DO YOU WANT TO OFFEND POTENTIAL DONORS AND SUPPORTERS OKAY THEY FORGOT TO PAY THEIR FEE THREE YEARS AGO? AND THEY'RE RULING ON THEIR OWN PROFESSION WHICH IS AWKWARD FOR EVERYBODY.

IT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER PROGRAM I SUSPECT AND WE'RE AT THE POINT THAT THE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES OR THE SURROGATES OR INTERESTED PARTIES ARE SENDING SIGNALS TO ADVERTISING AND WHAT JUSTICE A VOTER COULD REASONABLY EXPECT BUT WE WILL MOVE ON. VOTER ID AS WELL.

SURE. THAT IS ANOTHER DECISION OUT OF THE PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT, ANOTHER JUDGE TIM FOX ISSUE. EARLIER HE DECLARED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR PUTTING UNDUE BURDENS ON VOTERS OF THE SINCE THEN IT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY DETERMINED ONE PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT, WHICH IS WHAT FOX'S ORIGINAL CASE DEALT WITH IF THERE WAS A PERIOD FOR ABSENTEE VOTERS TO PRESENT THE ID AND THE COURT UPHELD THAT PROVISION AND IF YOU FAIL TO HAVE THE IDEA WITH THE MAILED BALLOT YOU DON'T GET A SECOND CHANCE TO BRING THAT OUT SO THAT CREATED TWO CLASSES OF VOTERS IN TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO SHOW ID AND ABILITY TO COST PROVISIONAL BALLOTS BUT SPEAKING TO THE LAW THE ACLU HAS A CASE DIRECTING THAT. I SPOKE WITH THE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THEY SOUNDED OPTIMISTIC AND HOW I PERCEIVE HE WANTS IT TO GO AND THEY DIDN'T THROW OUT FOX'S RULING AND THAT HE ONLY OVER STEPPED THE CASE AND WITH THOSE VOTES.

AND MOVING BEYOND THE PROCEDURAL DETAILS BUT THE LARGER THING IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT? AND IT'S TO PREVENT VOTER FRAUD AND THE QUESTION IS IS IT A PROBLEM AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE INSTITUTION OF A PHOTO ID LAW AND THAT'S WHERE THE SUBSTANTIVE BATTLE IS COMING OUT .

AS A POLITICAL QUESTION THE DIVIDING LINE IS PRETTY STARK.

RIGHT. THE ARGUMENT -- THE LEGAL ARGUMENT IS DO WE WANT TO HAVE THIS PHOTO ID TO PREVENT FRAUD OR IS IT WORTH THE EXPENSE OF WORRYING ABOUT IT? BUT THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT IS REPUBLICANS WANT IT BECAUSE IT WILL CUT DOWN ON PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE FOR THEM, AND DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT THE PHOTO ID BECAUSE IF WE HAVE IT WILL CUT DOWN ON THEIR VOTERS. THIS IS -- YES, THERE ARE LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES BUT POLITICALLY THOSE ARE POWERFUL ARGUMENTS AND BOTH SIDES KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AND IT'S NOT A SURPRISE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRATS SAYING THAT WE LIKE THIS LAW AND REPUBLICANS SAYING NO WE DON'T NEED THIS VOTER ID. IT'S VERY POLITICAL.

IT WAS INN A SURPRISE TO HAVE JACOB AND A DEMOCRAT TO ENDORS THE PIPELINE. .

THEY'RE TOGETHER WITH TIM GRIFFIN AND LEGISLATORS ADVOCATING FOR THE PIPELINE TO BE BUILT AND A LOT IN THE PRESS AND GREAT MEETING OF MINDS. THEY SHOOK EACH OTHERS HAND AND IT CIRCULATED AND FOR THE REST OF THE TOUR THEY DIDN'T INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER, HARDLY TALKED TO EACH OTHER. IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THEM AND EVEN THE WAY THEY CAMPAIGN THEMSELVES IS INTERESTING TO ME. MARK PRYOR GREETED EVERYONE, SHOCK EVERYONE'S HAND AND CURIOUS AND ASKED QUESTIONS. TIM GRIFFIN DTD SAME THING AND IN THE TOUR TOM COTTON STOOD THERE, DIDN'T INTERACT WITH PEOPLE AND WE TALKED ABOUT RETAIL POLITICS AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO THE STATE AND IT WAS STRIKING THE DIFFERENCE.

LET'S EMPHASIZE THIS IS MAY, NOT NOVEMBER SO THERE IS A LONG TIME, BUT THIS PERSISTS, -- THIS IMAGE OF MR. COTTON AS WOODEN, UNCOMFORTABLE IN CROWDS. STEVE.

WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE HE'S GOING TO GET OVER IT THIS BEING ARKANSAS. WE DON'T JUST VOTE HERE IN ARKANSAS BASED ON POLICY. WE DO ON PERSONALITY TOO SO I DIDN'T SEE THAT. JACOB WAS THERE SO I AM SURE YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT IF THAT IS THE CASE HE'S GOT TO DO BETTER AT THAT. ANOTHER THING TOO THIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN GOING ON A LONG TIME, AND COTTON IS NEW TO THIS GAME, AND PRYOR HAS BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND I WONDER IF THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF HOW MUCH XUFT ION OR BURN OUT -- YOU LOOK AT NBA ROOKIES AND MID-WAY THROUGH THE SEASON THEY PETER OUT A BIT AND I WONDER HOW MUCH READY FOR THE CAMPAIGN HE IS?

AND SEEMS TO ME THE NET EFFECT WAS TO TAKE THE PIPELINE ISSUE OFF THE TABLE, REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA.

EVEN THEN PRYOR WAS CLEARLY FOR IT. SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THIS AND COTTON LATER DOUBTED THE SINCERITY ON IT AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A PHOTO-OP HERE THEY DIDN'T TOOK THAT ROUTE BEYOND THAT.

HAL LAST WORD.

I THINK THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT PLAYS TO BOTH THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BOTH CANDIDATES. I THINK PRYOR'S STRENGTH IS THE CONNECTIVENESS, THE BRAND NAME THAT RESIDENTS KNOW IN POLITICS. I THINK THE WEAKEST HE'S A CENTRALISTS AND A BRIDGE BUILDER AND A CLIMATE THAT DOESN'T ENCOURAGE THAT ANYMORE.

WITH THAT WE'RE OUT OF TIME. GENTS THANKS FOR COMING IN. TO YOU THANKS ALWAYS FOR WATCHING. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

AETN.org > Programs > Arkansas Week > Arkansas Week May 16, 2014