Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 06:25 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. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated that HJR 7 and its
companion measure HB 45 were introduced to ensure statewide
support of an issue prior to it being put before the voters.
The legislation would require signatures from 10% of those
who voted in the preceding general election in at least 75%
of the house districts, in order for an issue to reach the
ballot. It would require signatures from 10% of the total
number of voters in the prior election.
Representative Williams added, currently, because of
Alaska's population dispersal, initiative sponsors can
easily gather required signatures from a single area of the
State. The current system does not require a statewide
perspective to determine what issues will appear on the
ballots as amendments to State law.
Representative Williams stated that HB 45 would make the
statutory changes necessary to conform to the proposed
constitutional changes of the resolution.
HJR 7 and HB 45 were HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON HJR 3, HJR 7, & HJR 25
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural
resources belonging to the state.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or
referendum regarding fish or wildlife.
STEVE WHITE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NATURAL RESOURCE
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, directed his comments to
concerns with the wildlife initiatives. He stated that the
Legislature needs to clarify why they would be placing fish
and wildlife initiatives separate from all other
initiatives. He stated that passage of the legislation
would establish a higher bar for those concerns.
Representative Austerman asked for clarification regarding
comments made by Mr. White. Mr. White replied that whenever
the Court's witness that the Legislature has taken different
action with different groups, they need to separate the
different categories and look for reasons. The reason for
establishing a higher bar should be discussed and placed on
the record for future litigation purposes.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that the prime sponsor's see
the need to use wildlife resources, and for that use to be
managed on science and logical grounds. Mr. White noted
that the sponsor's comments would to accompany the
legislation as it moves forward.
Representative J. Davies questioned why the proposed
concerns should be set apart from air and water quality
issues. Representative Bunde pointed out that HJR 3 speaks
to all natural resources, not just fish and game. He
reiterated that it would be best that the State's resources
be managed wisely and not be subject to the media
indoctrination. Mr. White stated that the Department of Law
looks to the Legislature to provide the tools needed to
clarify why these initiatives need a higher bar so that the
Department of Law can withstand a legal challenge when
protecting the legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the possible legal challenges
when State residents vote to change the Alaska Constitution.
Mr. White replied that when the Legislature takes action
differentiating two types of topics, the Courts will always
look for a reasonable base to guarantee that there are not
alternative motives. Co-Chair Therriault asked if the
Department of Law anticipated a challenge that the
legislation might violate the U.S. Constitution. Mr. White
did not anticipate that problem. He noted that this
information is an underlining requirement for all types of
legislation and that the Department is only trying to
strengthen the initiative process.
Representative J. Davies questioned how broad would the
resolution be. He asked if the definition of "natural
resources" would be extended.
Representative Williams asked if the Department placed HJR 7
in the same category as the other two initiatives. Mr.
White apologized, pointing out that HJR 7 is a separate
issue since it does not distinguish certain types of
initiatives, instead applies to all.
Representative Bunde clarified that Alaska is not a
manufacturing State. Alaska is highly dependent upon
resources to support its citizens. He stated that HJR 3
would allow 2/3 of Alaskans to make decisions regarding
resources and their use. Representative J. Davies cited
that the Legislature should "really" allow the majority of
Alaskans to make those decisions. He recommended that if
there is a problem with outside interests coming into
Alaska, there should be legislation addressing that concern
indicating the amount of money that can be spent in State on
advertising. Representative Bunde argued that the U.S.
Supreme Court has taken a strong stance on political speech
rights.
DICK BISHOP, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC),
FAIRBANKS, noted that AOC voted to support HJR 25. He
stated that they have observed the growing trend to use the
initiative process to influence fish and wildlife
management. In most cases, these initiatives have advocated
simple actions that affect complex issues. The approach is
usually highly emotional and shows little regard for sound
conservation, scientific management or values of others.
Mr. Bishop continued, the initiative process bypasses the
entire process. It short circuits thoughtful public
involvement. The Alaska Outdoor Council urges passage of
HJR 25. AOC does not believe that the proposed legislation
constraints the initiative process offered by the
alternative resolutions. They each have merit, however,
they would not be up to the task of ensuring an effective
means of conserving Alaska's fish and wildlife, and
protecting fishing, hunting and trapping values.
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, stated that the
Department has reservations about changing the initiative
process to prevent fish and game management issues as
recommended in HJR 25. Additionally, the Department does
not believe that requiring a super majority of 2/3 votes
cast to adopt an initiative as put forward in HJR 3.
Mr. Bruce commented that the Department is proud of the way
our system allows the public to be a party to fish and game
management decisions. Through the fish and game advisory
committees and the board process, individual Alaskans can
have a direct influence on how their fish and game resources
are managed, used and conserved. It is the preference of
the Department that the board process be used for making
fish and game management decisions because it allows both
the Department's scientific information and the public's
values and objectives for fish and game management to be
considered before any decision is made.
Mr. Bruce noted that many people consider the initiative
process to be an essential part of checks and balances that
make the democratic system work. The opportunity for the
public to make laws directly gives people a way to prevent
special interests from dominating government and in the long
run helps maintain public confidence in institutions like
the boards of fish and game.
Mr. Bruce concluded, the view of the Department is that
there is no danger to sound fish and game management from
the initiative process sufficient to require preventing its
application to fish and game management issues.
Additionally, the Department does not think that the
requirement for a super majority is warranted.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how many initiatives have been
introduced that affected fish and wildlife management. Mr.
Bruce commented that information was available and that he
would provide it to Committee members. Recently, there have
been two that have been the subject of much controversy.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the Department had supported any of
the initiatives. Mr. Bruce replied that the Department had
not taken a position. In one of the initiatives, the Court
ruled it was not suitable because it dealt with the
allocation of issues, while the other two addressed methods
and means. Representative Grussendorf discussed that
limited entry had been one of the issues.
Representative Bunde spoke to the result of leaving the
initiative process as it currently is. He asked Mr. Bruce
if he was suggesting that "special interests" had
manipulative power in the Legislature. Mr. Bruce commented
that he was speaking to the board process. People who are
interested can become involved through regulatory actions.
This does not suggest that the larger public does not have
ideas regarding how these issues should be handled.
Representative Williams inquired how the initiative process
could build confidence in the State. Mr. Bruce explained
that it assures people that they can directly take action to
make the laws that affect them. It provides checks and
balances throughout the system.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 105, Side 2).
Representative J. Davies asked why the State needs to set
wildlife decisions apart from other decisions. He pointed
out that the sponsor believes that "science" should take the
lead over "emotion". He advised that some people's emotions
might be another person's values. Currently, there are both
scientific and value decisions being decided in the
management of fish and game. The issue of "value" is often
driven and it is assumed that a decision can not be made
based on science. It has been suggested that it is
important to retain the initiative process, so that those
issues of value can be decided through a larger context.
Mr. Bruce pointed out that the number of initiatives,
illustrates that by and large, the current process works.
The Departments prefers that the current process remain.
Representative Williams advised that all three bills give
more validation toward scientific process. Mr. Bruce
reiterated that the board process is the preferred one of
the Department. Representative Williams questioned if the
three initiatives would close that process. Mr. Bruce
replied that HJR 25 would close the process entirely to fish
and game issues while HJR 3 would raise the bar. HJR 7
identifies how to place an issue on the ballot.
Public comment on the legislation was concluded.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
Representative J. Davies MOVED a change to Page 1, Line 8,
deleting "ten" and inserting "three". Representative
Williams OBJECTED.
Representative J. Davies noted that he supported the
resolution, however, maintained that 10% would be too high
of a raise to the bar. That amount of an increase could
almost delete the initiative process. Lowering the
percentage and broadening the area would accomplish the
intent requested in the legislation.
Representative J. Davies corrected the proposed change made
to Amendment #1. He MOVED a correction to Page 1, Line 10,
deleting "10" and inserting "3".
Co-Chair Mulder indicated support for the amendment. He
stated that without the amendment, there would be public
concern as the bar would be unattainable. Representative
Grussendorf noted his approval of the amendment.
Representative Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopting
Amendment #1. There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative Williams MOVED to report CS HJR 7 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HJR 7 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of
the Lt. Governor dated 2/26/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|