Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/08/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 60 - AMEND US CONSTIT. TO LIMIT FED. COURTS CHAIRMAN PORTER invited Rep. Vezey to present HJR 60. Number 485 REP. AL VEZEY: (Background noises impair sound.) "HJR 60 is a response to a move that is being coordinated by the representatives in Missouri to initiate a constitutional amendment that would provide a ban on the federal courts mandating that state and local governments impose taxes to enforce court orders, and things of that nature. There are two means of amending the United States Constitution, and this is requesting that the Congress propose to the states ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit the courts from imposing taxes upon political subdivisions of the United States." Number 501 REP. DAVIDSON: "Rep. Vezey, are there instances in Alaskan state history where in fact a federal court has mandated such a tax issue? Where are other examples of such -- Could you put some example language into our focus here so that we can understand exactly where some of this has occurred in the past?" Number 512 REP. VEZEY: "In the State of Alaska the courts have never ordered the state to impose a tax. The federal government has mandated many, many things upon the State of Alaska which have come out of the state's general revenues. We have never been in a position of having to impose a tax to fund those mandates." REP. DAVIDSON: "So, may I ask you right there, at that point --This would cover, any federal mandates that would result in the necessity of the state coming up with more revenue?" Number 521 REP. VEZEY: "In my opinion the answer to that is yes. You're talking a little gray area there. The federal government says, do something, other states have told the federal government we don't have the money, courts have ordered the states to impose a property tax or a sales tax or an income tax. States have been mandated to impose taxes to carry out federal mandates." Number 527 REP. DAVIDSON: "Examples of those?" REP. VEZEY: "I don't have the specific cases. I happen to know one of the biggest ones is in Kansas City, Missouri." REP. NORDLUND: "Rep. Vezey, in the resolve it says that the court basically can't order a political subdivision to increase or impose taxes. I understand that there are mandates that we are compelled to do that, as a result, sometimes make us, or other states, increase taxes. But that's not what the resolution says. I've never heard of a situation where any court has ordered a state to impose a tax." REP. VEZEY: "They have." REP. NORDLUND: "They have?" REP. VEZEY: "That's why this initiative is from Missouri, one of the most blatant cases occurred in Kansas City, Missouri." Number 530 REP. NORDLUND: "Now, how would that affect possible bond ratings for the state? When we give our full faith and credit to make payment on those bonds? The reason why those bonds are guaranteed to the bondholders is that, if all else fails, the state is willing to raise a tax to pay off bondholders. And if we didn't have that, it would seem to me, if we weren't compelled to do that, it seems to me that it would make the cost of bonds go up and it would be - (indiscernible - interrupted by Rep. Vezey.) REP. VEZEY: "I fail to see how that question is germane to this matter that is before us. The federal government has never, to my knowledge, entered into a state dead issue. It's the full faith and credit of the state of Alaska that we bond on, not the full faith and credit of the United States government." Number 554 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I think the jurisdiction for these cases would be in state court." REP. JAMES: "Well, I wanted to make a statement about this resolution, because it certainly is something that I've been very aware of for a long time. And that is the separation of powers. And I know in other cases there have been a lot of times, and not necessarily in federal courts, where I see the courts making rules that really are interfering with the other powers of the government. And I don't know how much more clearly we need to put that in the constitution. I would think that we would already have that protection. But I know that it's not there, because federal courts seem to be supreme." REP. VEZEY: "Well, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that the federal courts have the authority to do this." REP. JAMES: "So I really support this resolution, because it does get to the heart of what I think is one of our problems." REP. NORDLUND: "But in this state we don't have a problem, at least, we don't have a problem yet, in this state. I'm not sure if Rep. James is talking about another situation, but, at least in this state, no federal court has ordered us to impose taxes." REP. JAMES: "That is true. They haven't. And we want to be sure they don't. And I think that we have an obligation to our sister states, if one state is offended, I think it's something that we could be subject to, that we have an obligation to find some support for our sister states." Number 579 REP. JOE GREEN: "What was the situation in Kansas City?" REP. VEZEY: "It's been several years since I read that case. I didn't read the case, just read the news around it, but the federal court ordered the unified municipality of Kansas City, Missouri, to impose a property tax to fund a charter school system for the minority students in a certain part of the city or a certain political subdivision of that municipality, or something. The subject was, creating a school for minority groups in what would typically be called more of a ghetto area, to act as a magnet to draw other people into it. It was a big social experiment. And the city of Missouri was ordered to fund it." Number 599 REP. GREEN: "This was not a contractual thing, this was a civil rights issue that had come down from the feds?" REP. VEZEY: "I don't remember. I didn't even read the case. What authority the court used to do this, I don't know. But it was a brought to the Supreme Court, and it was upheld that the courts had the right to do that. It was under the courts' general authority over civil rights, yes." REP. GREEN: "That's what I was getting at. It wasn't enforcement of any kind of any kind of a contract, then. It was a mandate from the federal government - " REP. VEZEY: "To enforce a federal policy." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I see no one else signed up to testify on this bill. Is there anyone else that wishes to give testimony on HJR 60?" Number 610 REP. PETE KOTT: "I certainly support this measure. I don't think we ought to wait on the sidelines and have some negative action come about taking some form of preemptive strike. I do have a question to the sponsor that was probably overlooked during the first hearing on this in State Affairs on the resolve clause. We're asking legislators of all the states to join us to secure ratification of the proposed amendment. And that's what's going to happen. We're going to have to have an amendment before the states. The question I guess I have, which I'm not sure we really addressed in State Affairs, has there been an amendment proposed by a member of Congress? REP. VEZEY: "To my knowledge, the answer to that is no. But that is not to say there hasn't been one buried in some committee somewhere." DANIELLA LOPER, Committee Counsel, said that she believed an amendment had been drafted by one state which was asking other states to follow suit. REP. VEZEY: "Well, there are, I believe, 26 states have already done this, is the information I have. The states cannot propose amendments to the Constitution. Three- quarters of the states can call for constitutional convention, which current constitutional law implies there will be no limit on the subject matter before the convention; or a majority of Congress can propose for ratification by, I believe, it's three-quarters of the states, a constitutional amendment. And this is merely a petition to Congress to ask Congress to propose for ratification to the states, for a constitutional amendment." MS. LOPER: "The two major areas that this bill looks at are the funding of education and the funding of prisons." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "This bill?" MS. LOPER replied affirmatively. REP. VEZEY: "I would characterize it as broader than that. You could say that, but I would characterize it as broader." Number 644 REP. DAVIDSON petitioned the committee to engage the expertise of constitutional scholars before moving forward a resolution which could potentially affect the Constitution of the United States. Rep. Davidson expressed appreciation for the intent of the resolution but encouraged committee members to be more fully informed before acting on the resolution. He asked if Rep. Vezey would be gathering any further expertise to present a fuller picture of the legislation. Number 677 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "While I understand that this is no small area of consideration, I think a general understanding, at least on my part, has been obtained from listening to Rep. Vezey explain what it is that we're asking to be done here, is, as with 26 other states, we are asking the Congress to initiate an amendment covering this subject that would then be subject to a requirement of a three-quarters state ratification. So this, our action today, is not going to cause anything to happen tomorrow, believe me, and it is a long process, and nothing would happen in any event in terms of affecting the Constitution until the next phase, for this state, which would be consideration of the ratification of an actual proposed amendment. So this is just kind of sending a letter to our delegation saying, hey, how about considering this? I'm comfortable this is isn't going to cause anything to happen that we're not in control of." Number 691 REP. DAVIDSON: "I guess that's fine, I guess I'm uncomfortable with it because of the lack of information available." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Sure. Rep. Kott?" Number 703 REP. KOTT: "I think you've pretty much clarified the intent of the resolution. We're doing nothing more than asking Congress to take some action to pass a proposal that would amend the United States Constitution, and I think we all know that it's pretty tough to amend the U.S. Constitution. In each congressional session there are over 1,000 proposals. But none of them make it out of one house or the other. They just kind of die in Congress. And I think when you look at the ones that have made it out, it does take a very lengthy period of time; the average time span for a constitutional amendment to be ratified is three and a half years. It can take as long as seven years, which is generally the considered time limitation; once the seven years runs to the end there then the amendment basically dies, and that's what happened with the last one dealing with the Equal Rights Amendment. Just to understand the intent of it, I think you can recognize that there is potential violation with the Separation of Powers Act, and certainly with the concept of Federalism. And the courts, perhaps, have gone way overboard since Madison's days in 1801. How do you overturn a court decision? This is one of the ways." REP. DAVIDSON: "Well, my feeling is still, even a constitutional journey starts with the first step, and if this is the first step, but it's the wrong step, then I'm uncomfortable with it." Rep. Davidson reiterated his request for more factual testimony from a legal expert, particularly on constitutional law. CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Any further discussion?" Number 720 REP. JAMES: "I'd move this resolution out of the committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note, as attached." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We have a motion to move. Is there objection?" REP. DAVIDSON presented objection. REP. NORDLUND: "I'd like to comment that I do support the intent of the resolution. I don't think any of us would want to get into a situation where we would have the court system taking over legislative powers of taxation. But I kind of think that it's a little bit of a Chicken Little situation here, frankly. Is there really that much of a problem? I don't think so. And I'm concerned that it might just be an opportunity to take shots at the federal court. And maybe they deserve it in some cases, but -- I support the resolution, but I just, frankly, don't think there's probably that much need for it." REP. DAVIDSON: "I think, in addition, we heard the comment that the courts have gone overboard. Perhaps so, in some areas. But maybe not in others. It's one of these debatable kinds of things. So, I would maintain my objection at this point until we have more information. And, again, I appreciate the intent here." REP. JAMES: "Just one comment that I would have, on that point. That is, that I believe very strongly in a government of the people. And I believe that the power of taxation is the power of the people, either by their own vote or by the vote of those people who they've authorized to vote for them. And that would be their local people that have opted to let them charge taxes. And I don't think anyone else has the right to do that. And so that's why I support this resolution." Number 750 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Objection is maintained. May we have a roll call vote please?" A roll call vote was taken by the committee. Representatives Green, Kott, Nordlund, James, Phillips and Porter voted "Yea"; Representative Davidson voted "Nay". HJR 60 was therefore moved out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|