Legislature(2005 - 2006)
11/15/2006 04:24 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB4001 | |
| HB4002 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 4002
"An Act authorizing an advisory vote on employment
benefits for same-sex partners of public employees; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, SPONSOR, stated that the
legislation was brought forward to bring public debate on
the issue of same sex benefits. He pointed out that the
purpose of the bill was to reassert the constitutional
authority of the legislature as the voice of the people. He
felt that the Judiciary had overstepped its bounds in areas
that speak to public policy. He observed that the previous
Legislature was involved in issues regarding changes to the
oil tax structure, a gas pipeline proposal and other weighty
issues. He did not think the previous Legislature had the
three-fourth votes to put forward a constitutional amendment
pertaining to the issue of same sex benefits before the
people. The legislation would require an advisory vote of
the people to have the public discussion; thereby, providing
a clear understanding of the people's desire. A special
rd
advisory election would occur on April 3, 2007, which was
selected as the municipal election date for many of the
larger municipalities including Anchorage in an attempt to
save the State money in putting on another election. He
thought the April 3, 2007 date would allow the Legislature
time to discuss the issue and act. He maintained that there
deserves to be public discussion and the issue needed to be
resolved. He acknowledged changing attitudes in the country
regarding the issue and questioned if Alaska was ready to
follow this trend or maintain the constitutionally adopted
definition of marriage. He noted that he was the original
sponsor, in 1996, of legislation pertaining to the
definition of marriage. He pointed out that the ACLU lawsuit
did not have a brief relating to the legislation passed in
1996. AS 18.80.220 (c) provides:
Notwithstanding the prohibition against employment
discrimination on the basis of marital status or
parenthood under (a) of this section,
(1) an employer may, without violating this
chapter, provide greater health and retirement benefits
to employees who have a spouse or dependent children
than are provided to other employees.
Representative Rokeberg maintained that the Office of the
Attorney General has failed the people of Alaska "in terms
of pursuing these types of cases and, therefore, it is up to
the legislature to assert" its own power and authority to
take back from the judiciary its right to make policy for
the state. He referred to the ballot proposition on page 2:
Shall the legislature adopt a proposed amendment to
the state constitution to be considered by the voters
at the 2008 general election that would prohibit the
state, or a municipality or other subdivision of the
state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex
partners of public employees and to same-sex partners
of public employee retirees?
6:14:01 PM
Representative Rokeberg questioned if discussion should
occur regarding prohibiting the University of Alaska from
providing benefits or if Municipalities should be allowed an
optional selection. He noted that the 1996 legislation was a
result of the Tumeo versus the University of Alaska case.
The Tumeo case gave rise to the first set of the
University's regulations and eligibility requirements, which
were promulgated by the University and ratified by the Court
as a result of court action, not by the people of the state
of Alaska. He maintained that the same situation has
occurred, eleven years later. The "judges are driving and
the people of Alaska are not being listened too".
6:15:28 PM
Representative Stoltze suggested the date to allow the issue
to be tagged on to municipal elections. He observed that
Anchorage's Superintendent Comeau had approached the
Division of Election about "tagging" municipal school
district issues during state elections on at least two
occasions, "given that it is about 40 percent of the
population." He maintained that striving to increase voter
turnout is a good public policy motivation for the date. He
noted that the date would also allow the Division of
Elections sufficient time to prepare. He observed that, in
the past, the Municipality of Anchorage's school district
has compensated the state of Alaska for the cost [to add
issues on to state elections] and felt that the state would
"turn about" to reimburse municipalities for those costs.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that it would be "legitimate" to tag
on to the City of Anchorage's election. He questioned the
sponsor's intent regarding an opt-out provision for
municipalities and the University that now allows the
benefits. Representative Rokeberg acknowledged that an
argument could be made that the benefits achieved should not
be diminished. He observed the difficulty of making
exceptions to the language. He had not reached a decision
regarding an opt-out provision.
6:18:37 PM
Representative Stoltze observed that all monetary issues
come before the Finance Committee. He suggested that it
would be a function of the legislature to implement the will
of the people, and would have until 2008 to do so. He
stressed that the legislation would accomplish the goal of
discovering the will of the people. The legislation provides
an advisory opinion; an actual constitutional amendment
would have a longer process.
Representative Rokeberg proposed that the legislation be
amended with the addition of "substantially" on page 1, line
13. He suggested that the addition of "substantially" would
give the legislature the right to word-smith the amendment.
He noted that there would be another session in 2008 to
draft the ballot amendment before it is passed.
6:20:59 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if the Supreme Court was wrong
in their equal protection analysis. Representative Rokeberg
noted that he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision.
He felt that legal credence was not given to the voice of
the people's action in adopting a same sex prohibition in
terms of the marriage definition. He acknowledged that he
was not a legal expert. He thought that the privacy clause
of the Alaska Constitution might give greater credence to
the equal protection argument. He observed that the courts
have never allowed the legislature to amend the privacy
clause, when in fact the term "by law" is in the
constitutional amendment. He concluded that without the full
understanding of the legal issues, he would tend to agree
with the Court in its analysis; however, he felt that they
had wronged the Legislature with their remedy process, which
he felt was the biggest problem. He maintained that the
Court had reached into the policy making process and
observed that the University had eligibility criteria, which
was established as a result of the Court's action for 10
years. Due to the Court's action eligibility criteria [for
same sex marriage benefits] were drafted by the University
and ratified by the membership of the resulting
beneficiaries. Now the Court has determined that these
criteria, which have been in placed for a decade, are
inadequate. He stressed that no credence was given to the
voice of the legislature in the past, and cut out the voice
of the people as represented by the legislature. He
concluded that a constitutional amendment discussion and
vote was demanded for clarity.
6:24:36 PM
Representative Kerttula expressed respect for the Sponsor.
She noted that "once you completely did not agree with the
resolution for the remedy. Representative Rokeberg agreed
that the issue is complex and that the goal is to find a
common ground and that the "clarity of the resolution is to
put it on the ballot" with a 2/3 rd vote of the legislature.
6:25:54 PM
Representative Kelly worried that the Court had a
destination in mind with the decision. He expressed concern
that "everything can be made to look normal by lawyers and
judges that have a destination in mind." He referred to the
$10 million unfunded liability [of the cost of the
additional coverage]. He maintained that it is the
legislature's purview to decide whether the benefits should
be offered. He asserted that the "people spoke clearly and
they meant this issue to be included." The legislation would
allow the legislature time to deliberate and "give the
people of Alaska time to tell them, once more, what they
meant in 1998.
6:29:21 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, JUNEAU, addressed the costs
associated with conducting an advisory vote election. She
observed that an advisory vote on a long range fiscal plan
cost $939 thousand in 1999. She noted that the fiscal note
assumed that the election would be conducted in person and
that contractual services would include: ballot printing,
election boards, advertising, shipping and postage, polling
place rental and setup, forms, microfilming, $100 thousand
for the creation and mailing of an information pamphlet to
each household. She observed that costs have increased since
1999; there have been increases to shipping, postage,
payment to election workers, and ballot printing. She noted
that there could be cost savings if the Division is able to
enter into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the
Municipality of Anchorage to utilize municipal resources
during municipal elections. She observed that the Division
has held special elections for the Municipal elections, and
hoped that they would be willing to reciprocate.
6:32:13 PM
Co-Chair Meyer questioned if it were a reasonable request to
ask the City of Anchorage to allow the State to "piggy-back"
on the municipal elections. Ms. Brewster felt that it would
be a reasonable request and pointed out that the State held
a special election for the Municipality of Anchorage in 2004
and noted that the Municipality assumed some of the costs
associated with that election.
Co-Chair Meyer proposed that the bill be moved from
Committee with an indeterminate fiscal note. Ms. Brewster
was comfortable with that idea.
6:33:44 PM
STEVEN JACQUIER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference,
spoke against the legislation. He felt the legislation
expressed anti-gay sentiment. He maintained that the
Constitution requires equal treatment.
6:37:17 PM
In response to a question by Co-Chair Chenault, Mr. Jacquier
clarified that his children were currently covered through
his partner's benefit program.
6:39:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, spoke to the case of a Supreme
Court's expansion of class of people eligible for benefits
under equal protection. He noted that the Alaska Cost of
Living Allowance (COLA) gives an additional 10 percent
retirement benefit to those residing in Alaska. The Court
and Court of Appeals have determined that, based on the
equal protection clause, anyone living outside of Alaska can
qualify for the Alaska COLA if they have a cost of living
equal to Anchorage. There are two paralleled situations in
which the Courts are making a decision based on equal
protection to expand the class of people that would receive
benefits. He questioned if the advisory vote should address
all situations regarding the expansion of benefits under
equal. He observed that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled
on the COLA issue.
6:42:08 PM
Representative Rokeberg suggested that "and retirees" be
added to page 2, line 5, since there are two different
groups that would be affected. He observed that the
Commissioner supports the change.
6:43:01 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND: insert "and retirees"
on page 2, line 5.
6:43:41 PM
Representative Kerttula OBJECTED. She indicated that her
objection pertained to the entire legislation.
Representative Stoltze stressed that the legislation would
not restrict any broad retiree benefits and is only in
regards to same sex benefit retirees.
Representative Kerttula pointed out that it would affect
retirees with same sex partners.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Meyer,
Chenault
OPPOSED: Kerttula
Representatives Moses, Joule and Weyhrauch were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND: insert "substantially"
on page 1, line 13 after "ballot".
6:45:26 PM
Representative Kerttula OBJECTED. She explained that she was
not comfortable without knowing the exact language.
Representative Hawker argued that the language would be
crafted in the next legislature in a full and open process.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Meyer,
Chenault
OPPOSED: Kerttula
Representatives Moses, Joule and Weyhrauch were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
Vice-Chair Meyer observed that the fiscal note would be
forthcoming from Division of Elections.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 4002 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Kerttula OBJECTED. She observed that rather
than identifying the right determination of what makes sense
across the board for Alaskans that the legislation would
prohibit something. She argued that was the wrong way to
approach the issue.
6:49:15 PM
Representative Hawker referred to the sentiment of
"trusting" the people on issues. He felt that it was
appropriate to trust the people to guide the legislature on
this very controversial issue, without an empirical answer.
Representative Kerttula noted that she took an oath to
uphold the Constitution and felt that it was clear on the
issue.
6:50:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to pass the bill
from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Meyer,
Chenault
OPPOSED: Kerttula
Representatives Moses, Joule and Weyhrauch were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
CSHB 4002 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal notes: An
indeterminate and ADM zero.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|