Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/13/2009 08:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB96|| HB192 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SSHB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES 9:07:46 AM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot initiatives." CHAIR RAMRAS noted that public testimony on SSHB 36 had been closed. 9:08:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0197\E.3, Bullard, 4/9/09, which read: Page 5, lines 4 - 7: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 6, line 11, through page 7, line 5: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 1 would delete Section 8 and Section 11. Section 8 would preclude an initiative from being proposed if, [during the previous two years,] a substantially similar one failed to be approved by the voters, and raised the concern that it would limit citizens' free speech and right to place initiatives on the ballot. He offered his recollection that even one of the joint prime sponsors acknowledged that Section 8 could be problematic. Section 11 would prohibit a signature gatherer from collecting signatures for more than one petition at a time, and raised the concern that signature gatherers would be inordinately restricted. CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that Amendment 1 would also delete Section 12 [which contained conforming changes]. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:11:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0197\E.4, Bullard, 4/9/09, which read: Page 2, line 21: Delete "[AN INITIATIVE,]" Insert "a municipal [AN] initiative," Page 2, line 22, following "governor": Insert "or the division of elections" Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 8: Delete all material and insert: "(g) An initiative committee, person, group, or nongroup entity receiving contributions exceeding $500 or making expenditures exceeding $500 in a calendar year in support of or in opposition to an initiative on the ballot in a statewide election or an initiative proposal application filed with the lieutenant governor under AS 15.45.020 shall file a report within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter on the contributions received and expenditures made during the preceding calendar quarter until reports are due under (a) and (b) of this section. If the report is a first report, it must cover the period beginning on the day an initiative proposal application is filed under AS 15.45.020 and ending three days before the due date of the report." REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he'd just been notified that Amendment 2's currently-proposed changes to page 2, lines 21 and 22, would be being made in the wrong place. 9:12:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors of SSHB 36, concurred, and suggested that the bill's next committee of referral could address those proposed changes. In response to questions, he indicated that he would be amenable to having Amendment 2 divided, since its proposed change to page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 8, is meant to address [a drafting error]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to divide the question such that the changes proposed to page 2, lines 21 and 22, would become Amendment 2a, and the change proposed to page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 8, would become Amendment 2b. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was so divided. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 2a. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred that Amendment 2b would [address a drafting error]. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports Amendment 2b. CHAIR RAMRAS sought clarification regarding the terms "initiative committee", "person", "group", and "nongroup entity" as used in Amendment 2b. 9:17:28 AM JANET DeYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), explained that the term "person" is broadly defined in Title 1, and encompasses both real people - individuals - and corporate or other business groups. The term "group" as used in Amendment 2b is considered by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to mean a political action committee (PAC), an organization that registers with the APOC in order to participate in election fundraising and spending. The term "nongroup entity" is the creature of an Alaska Supreme Court ruling and was later codified, and refers to groups that are formed for the purpose of advocating certain points of view but not specifically organized for election purposes but may from time to time participate in elections. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether Amendment 2b's proposed AS 15.13.110(g) would be the appropriate place to add language that would forbid corporations from contributing [to ballot initiatives]. MS. DeYOUNG said it would not be the appropriate place. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether Amendment 2b's reporting requirement would apply to any contributions received before the day an initiative proposal application is filed under AS 15.45.020. 9:21:08 AM CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), indicated that it would because initiative sponsors, in their first quarterly report, are required to either start with a zero balance or disclose where any startup money came from. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether [Amendment 2b] would apply to unions. MS. ELLINGSON said yes. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 2b was adopted. 9:25:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 26-LS0197\E.5, Bullard, 4/10/09, which read: Page 7, lines 9 - 10: Delete "the sponsors shall hold public hearings concerning the proposed bill in at least 30 house districts" Insert "the lieutenant governor or a designee of the lieutenant governor shall hold at least two public hearings concerning the proposed bill in each judicial district of the state. Public hearings under this section shall be conducted in a manner that allows the initiative's sponsors, other affected and interested parties supporting or opposing the initiative, and citizens an opportunity to be heard" Page 7, line 11: Delete "sponsors" Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the lieutenant governor" Page 7, line 13: Delete "sponsors" Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the lieutenant governor" Page 7, line 15, through page 8, line 12: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 3 would remove the burden on an initiative sponsor to hold public hearings in [at least 30 house districts], and would instead place the burden on the lieutenant governor or his/her designee to hold at least two public hearings in each judicial district. He offered his understanding that the bill's sponsor considers this to be a good way of addressing the concern that the bill's current provision regarding public hearings would be too onerous on initiative sponsors. CHAIR RAMRAS asked how many judicial districts there are in the state. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES and REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said there are four judicial districts in the state. CHAIR RAMRAS, surmising that Amendment 3 would result in eight meetings, asked when those meetings would be held. He noted that although several potential ballot initiatives might go through the signature-gathering phase, generally only a few actually get certified for placement on the ballot. 9:28:50 AM JASON HOOLEY, Deputy Chief of Staff, Juneau Office, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, acknowledged that point, and said he is assuming that the meetings would be held [during the signature- gathering phase]. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that a group could come up with what he characterized as a sensational ballot initiative and force public meetings to be held before the initiative is certified for placement on the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that under the bill - either with Amendment 3 or without it - the public meetings would be held after the ballot initiative application is filed but before it is certified for placement on the ballot. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that sponsors of a ballot initiative could force public meetings to be held but then never follow through with gathering the required number of signatures for placement on the ballot. MR. HOOLEY offered his belief that the public hearings would be held regardless of the merits of the proposed ballot initiative, and reiterated that the meetings would be held after the application is filed. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that litigation sometimes occurs between the time that a ballot initiative application is filed and the time that it is certified for placement on the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern that the lieutenant governor's office would be spending State funds to hold public hearings on every potential ballot initiative, and noted that it is also not clear how the lieutenant governor's office would know how long it's going to take sponsors to gather enough signatures, and so could have difficulties scheduling the public meetings in a timely manner. She said she would be more comfortable if the bill required the public meetings to be held after a ballot initiative is certified for placement on the ballot but before the election. CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated his concern, and questioned whether it would be the sponsor's intent to have the public hearings after an initiative is certified. 9:34:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said his intention is to have as much information about proposed ballot initiatives made public as soon as possible, regardless that some of them might not get certified. He noted that voter pamphlets currently include a pro statement and a con statement, and opined that it will be the duty of the lieutenant governor to expand on those statements during the public hearings, which, he surmised, could be paid for out of the lieutenant governor's travel budget and be held at legislative information offices (LIOs). CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for the language of Amendment 3 over the language currently in the bill, but said he is not in favor with having the public hearings occur before a proposed ballot initiative gets certified. He suggested that Amendment 3 be amended such that the public hearings would be held after a proposed initiative gets certified for placement on the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said: I guess it's all perspective; the public's right to petition the government and have initiatives on any subject, whether it's deemed wacko ... or not, ... is part of the point; ... I'd argue that the lieutenant governor would provide an opportunity for both sides of an issue to be put out there, and if it is so out there and wacko, then I think it would be quite apparent. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to comments and a question, indicated that it is his intention for there to be public hearings on every issue that could potentially get on the ballot. MR. HOOLEY, in response to questions, explained that both the initial application for an initiative proposal and any resulting proposed ballot initiative must be certified by the lieutenant governor; if the goal is to have the public hearings after a proposed ballot initiative is certified for placement on the ballot, the phrase that should be used is, "after the petition has been properly filed". 9:44:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion] to amend Amendment 3 such that the correct term of art be used to [indicate that the public hearings would occur once a proposed initiative has been certified for placement on the ballot]. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that such a change would be acceptable to him. MR. HOOLEY mentioned that although the lieutenant governor's office has some discomfort with such a change, it has no opposition to it. The lieutenant governor's office is an unbiased and impartial administrator of the citizens' initiative process, and applies the same standards to every initiative that comes into the office; these standards are provided for by the Alaska State Constitution and Alaska's statutes. In response to comments, he explained that once an initiative is certified for placement on the ballot, the legislature has one full legislative session to act on the matter raised by the initiative. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether there ought to also be statutory timeframes for when the public meetings have to occur, or whether having something in regulations would be sufficient. MR. HOOLEY indicated that he would have to research that issue further. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the lieutenant governor's office should have flexibility in that regard so as to be able to hold the meetings when and where it sees fit depending on the topic of the proposed ballot initiative. He acknowledged that regulations could be promulgated to address this issue further. 9:51:53 AM MR. HOOLEY offered his understanding that the lieutenant governor's office would prefer not to have that kind of discretion, and would instead prefer to have any such timeframes set out in either statute or regulation so as to avoid accusations of prejudice. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that political bias could influence the choice of venue for the public hearings if too much flexibility in that regard is provided. MR. HOOLEY, in response to a question, said that the lieutenant governor's office wants the force of law behind the decisions it makes, particularly since any person, regardless of whether he/she is associated with a proposed ballot initiative, can file an action in court regarding those decisions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that promulgating regulations [regarding the timeframes and locations of the public meetings] would be sufficient, but acknowledged that the lieutenant governor's office may prefer to have the legislature, via statute, set out those requirements. MR. HOOLEY again said he would research this issue further. CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that amendments addressing corporations and the single-subject rule would also be offered, and suggested that further work be done on Amendment 3 and any amendments to it. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed that he was amenable to having the bill held over in order to address the questions raised. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, characterizing the applicability section of the bill as awkward, indicated that an amendment addressing that section would also be offered. [SSHB 36, as amended - with the motion to amend Amendment 3, and the motion to adopt Amendment 3, left pending - was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|