Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/06/2009 02:31 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES 2:32:11 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot initiatives." 2:32:34 PM JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), after mentioning that he would be testifying in support of SSHB 36, provided members with information about the RDC. He then said that although the RDC may question the appropriateness and the role of the initiative process as a means of governing, the RDC appreciates the democratic rights of Alaskans to change state law through the initiative process. Over the last few years, however, a number of proposed initiatives have been brought forward that have not had the best interests of the state or its citizens in mind, and their sponsors have used tactics during the signature-gathering phase that mislead the public and misconstrued the issues and impacts at play, he opined. The RDC believes that openness and transparency must be at the forefront of good government, and SSHB 36 will require both public and legislative hearings for initiatives; this is a good idea, particularly given that the unintended consequences of laws the legislature attempts to pass are usually vetted during the numerous hearings, public testimony, and floor debates that are part of the legislative process. MR. BRUNE noted that legislators, the people who are elected to pass state laws, are required to disclose how they raise and spend money. Why shouldn't those who are attempting to change state law through the initiative process also be subject to that same standard? Why shouldn't they, too, be required to disclose the source of their funding during the signature-gathering phase of the initiative process? "This" openness and transparency will bring to light the agendas of initiative sponsors, he remarked, adding that the RDC would very much oppose any amendment that would preclude "foreign" contributions for initiatives, because a number of foreign companies invest in Alaska and employ Alaskans and so should be allowed to participate in the initiative process. He suggested that in addition to requiring signature gatherers to carry the entirety of a proposed initiative with them, SSHB 36 should be amended such that signature gatherers would also be required to tell the truth. MR. BRUNE opined, "We must bring openness and transparency back to this process," and noted that SSHB 36 would preclude signature gatherers from collecting signatures for more than one initiative at a time, adding that he's seen signature gatherers blur the lines between different initiatives for which they're collecting signatures, opining that such behavior is a disservice to the public; SSHB 36 would prevent intentional muddying of the waters. In conclusion, he said he is not confident that signature gatherers will police themselves, opined that standards must be instituted to ensure a candid initiative process, characterized SSHB 36 as an important bill - both for the state and for the RDC's members - and urged the committee to support SSHB 36. CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to comments about the 2006 ballot initiative regarding cruise ship taxation, regulation, and disclosure, offered his belief that when that initiative was approved for placement on the ballot, the lieutenant governor failed in his duty to restrict the initiative to a single subject, and that that's what lead to any confusion regarding what that initiative was about. MR. BRUNE, in response to questions, reiterated his belief that foreign companies that invest in Alaska have a vested interest in the initiative process, and offered his understanding that currently foreign companies and their employees - regardless of where they reside - can contribute to initiatives. 2:39:23 PM JEANINE ST. JOHN, President, Alaska Support Industry Alliance ("the Alliance"), provided information about the Alliance, and relayed that she would be speaking in support SSHB 36, and that the Alliance supports the constitutional right of Alaskans to utilize the initiative process when they believe they are not being effectively represented. However, members of the Alliance are quite concerned about what she characterized as the abusive use of the ballot initiative process. She offered her belief that SSHB 36 will strengthen that process by ensuring that the public is clearly aware of what she called "the true intent" and funding sources of any initiative. She said it's unfortunate that the initiative process has become a way for special interests to manipulate state law, and expressed appreciation for the joint prime sponsors' intent to "amend the process and provide a truly open and transparent initiative process." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what effect Section 2 would have. 2:43:07 PM CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), offered her understanding that Section 2 just requires [initiative sponsors] to register as a group [with the APOC] prior to making an expenditure; currently initiative sponsors are already required to register [with the APOC]. In response to another question, she offered her belief that Section 3 won't affect existing limitations or who can contribute to ballot initiative groups, and that AS 15.13.065 addresses ballot initiatives in municipal elections. MS. ELLINGSON, in response to further questions, indicated that Section 5 simply mirrors language currently in AS 15.13.110(e) and speaks to the issue of quarterly reports, and that the proposed changes to the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" are intended to ensure that reporting occurs earlier in the ballot initiative process and shouldn't affect the nature of donations or spending. The committee took an at-ease from 2:47 p.m. to 2:48 p.m. MS. ELLINGSON, in response to a further question, offered her understanding that Section 1 pertains to when a person makes a contribution, whereas Sections 6 and 7, respectively, change the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure". 2:50:01 PM GLENN M. PRAX indicated that he has some concerns with SSHB 36, and opined that the recent changes to Alaska's ballot initiative laws have made the process much more difficult. He relayed that when he was actively involved in the initiative process a number of years ago, "citizen-driven groups" [were the primary participants], but such groups seem to be obsolete now. He cautioned the committee to be careful that the bill doesn't go further than necessary or make the initiative process only accessible to "the targeted groups." He surmised that requiring initiative sponsors to hold public hearings on initiatives would result in a perfunctory exercise that doesn't provide the value expected. In conclusion, he said he does think that there is some value in providing more transparency with regard to contributors, but again cautioned against going too far with SSHB 36 and implementing things that won't really work out as expected. CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on SSHB 36. [SSHB 36 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|