Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/04/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that Work Draft, 0-LS538\I was
adopted on 3/3/98.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Amendment 1 would add "and as may be provided by
law" after "section" on page 3, line 3. Representative
Davies OBJECTED. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the intent
is to clarify that the legislature may add additional
clarifications through statute.
JIM SOURANT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that
Amendment 1 would allow the legislature to provide
additional firm guidelines for the chief justice in the
process of selecting the five board members.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the Court indicated that
it would be more comfortable with greater direction by the
legislature. Mr. Sourant agreed. Co-Chair Therriault noted
that clarification might pertain to the length of residency
or a prohibition against all members being from one
political party.
Representative Davies stated his objection based on the fact
that the other criteria would not be known at the time the
question goes on the ballot. He stressed that specific
concerns could be addressed in the resolution.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He
maintained that the intent is to make the process fair and
equitable.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that geographical balance would be
maintained by requiring one member to be appointed from each
judicial district.
Mr. Sourant emphasized that changes to the Constitution
should be minimal. He stated that additional statutory
clarification could not be contrary to the Constitution.
Representative Davies asked if the language "subject to the
provisions of this section" is necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that the language clarifies that
the Constitution contains some requirements and that
additional changes may be placed in law.
Representative Davies asserted that Amendment 1 would open
the process to political influences.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Therriault
OPPOSED: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
Representatives Moses and Martin were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file). He observed that the amendment clarifies when
members of the redistricting board are to be appointed. He
observed that the current version would provide that they be
appointed between January 1st and 16th of the year following
the census. He emphasized that board members have been
appointed before the information is actually available. He
observed that members could use the time to review court
cases and establish procedures. The amendment would provide
that board members be appointed by September 1st of the year
of the census.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on
file). Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED for the purpose
of discussion. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Amendment 3
would require members to reside in the judicial district
that they are appointed to represent. He added that members
would be appointed based on judicial districts in existence
on January 1, 1999.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Co-Chair
Therriault stated that the provision would retain 5 members
on the committee. Geographical representation would be
maintained.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -52, Side 1)
Representative Davies felt that it would make sense for the
board to reflect changes in judicial districts. He spoke in
support of one member from each of the judicial district and
one member at-large. Co-Chair Therriault spoke against a
mechanism that would expand the board. Co-Chair Hanley
pointed out that an additional judicial district could
result in an even number of members on the board. He
observed that the at-large member could come from the new
district if another one is created.
Representative Davies WITHDREW his objection. There being
NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 (copy on
file). Representative Davies OBJECTED.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained
that Amendment 4 would change the effective date from the
year 2001 to the year 2000. This change corresponds to the
appointment of board members. Co-Chair Therriault clarified
that the new mechanism would be before the board when they
are appointed in the year 2000.
Mr. Tibbles noted that the amendment addresses subsection
(b). The amendment would delete the effective date of
December 31, 2000. The section would be effective on the
date that the lieutenant governor certifies that a majority
of the voters have approved the amendment. Section 12 is
amended to reflect the year 2000 date.
Representative Martin noted that the transitional section is
not part of the Constitution.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that section 8 on page 4 provides
that the current redistribution plan stay in place until the
new plan is approved.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that constitutional amendments
are enacted under the provisions of the Constitution. He
questioned the need for section 8.
Mr. Baldwin clarified that Article XIII of the Constitution
provides that amendments are effective 30 days after the
certification of the election returns, unless otherwise
provided in the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if it would be possible for the
Governor to impanel a redistricting board in 1998 or 1999
based on old census information. Mr. Baldwin did not think
that a governor could appoint a board based on the prior
census. He noted that reapportionment boards have been
impaneled before the end of a governor's term. Governor
Cowper appointed a board before the end of his term.
Governor Hickel discharged the board when he came to office.
There must be some dramatic circumstance to do a midterm
reapportionment. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that under the
legislation, the chief justice would appoint the board. He
noted that the board could not recommend a reapportionment
plan until they receive the new census data.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Baldwin
reiterated his belief that the transitional section provides
for a 12-year cycle. He emphasized that the provision
encourages litigation to keep the present plan in place for
another legislative term. He observed that litigation was
not resolved on the 1990 reapportionment until 1994.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that if the transitional language
were removed the amendment would take effect under normal
constitutional provisions.
Mr. Baldwin stressed his concern that section 8 would result
in the retention of the current plan for an additional 2
years.
Representative Martin pointed out that a governor would need
an appropriation to fund a reapportionment board. He
observed that the first United States census for the state
of Alaska was done in 1990. He maintained that the state of
Alaska would not receive census information before
September.
Mr. Sourant explained that the 2001 effective date was
arbitrarily picked. He did not object to changing the
effective date. He agreed that reapportionment can only
occur once every 10 years unless there is a compelling
reason. He did not see any reason for a delayed effective
date.
Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW Amendment 4. He MOVED to ADOPT
Amendment 5, to delete section 11 on page 5, lines 15 - 24.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that the Constitution states that
the reapportionment and redistricting shall be effective for
the members of the legislature until after the official
reporting of the next decennial census. The new criteria
would be sixty days after the adoption and final
adjudication of the succeeding redistricting plan.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that at the time of the last
redistricting, Representative Miller's district had doubled
in population while other districts had dropped. He
observed that the Representative would not have wanted to
see litigation continue the inequity.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the old system would remain
until all litigation were resolved.
Representative Davies maintained that the "final plan" on
page 3, line 13 refers to the final plan of the
redistricting board. He asserted that the language is
confusing and that there needs to be a distinction between
the final plan of the redistricting board and the existing
official plan.
Mr. Sourant emphasized the need for a plan to be in place
prior to the election. Co-Chair Therriault observed that a
temporary new plan would at least redistribute population.
Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of section 8.
Mr. Sourant clarified that the sponsor's intent is that the
old plan remain in place until the new plan has been
resolved.
Co-Chair Hanley agreed that "final plan" could be
interpreted to mean the new redistricting plan.
Representative Martin stressed that the inclination is to
prolong the process.
Mr. Sourant stated that the language on page 5, lines 15 -
24 would clarify that the "final plan" refers to the plan
that is in existence today.
Representative Mulder and Co-Chair Hanley agreed that the
language implies that the new plan would stay in place until
it is replaced by the final official plan. Members
concluded that section 8 needed further clarification.
Representative Davies spoke in support of retaining the new
redistricting plan as a temporary plan until it is replaced
by a new adjusted plan.
Mr. Sourant stressed that language was added to expedite
Supreme Court consideration of litigation relating to the
redistricting plan.
HCR 44 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|