Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/26/1995 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 01/26/95
Number 020
HJR 4 - USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, SPONSOR OF HJR 4, gave a history of
state constitutions and the rights of people to change them. He
said a constitution is a contract between the state and its people
and thus people have a right to change it. Constitutional
conventions were instigated as an alternative to revolution as a
method for change, but they became too cumbersome and the public
initiative came into being. In Alaska, over 500 initiatives have
been introduced by legislators, but less than 20 of them have
passed. He added that the people of Alaska need a way to change
their constitution.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked what states allow a change in the
constitution by just a simple majority of the voters on a ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that most do, although it is more
difficult for a legislature to get an issue on the ballot,
requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislators in most states.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked how many signatures are required on a
citizen's petition, and then what happens.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that the figures of the National
Conference of State Legislatures show between five and ten percent
of the number of voters in the most recent election. Then there is
a five-step procedure. A group forms with one hundred members
throughout the state and three officers; they create a stated
mission, which they take to the Lt. Governor's office for approval
to petition. When enough signatures are gathered and certified by
the Division of Elections, corresponding legislation is then
required. He stated it is not a very easy process and people don't
sign a petition blindly.
Number 226
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN commented this resolution scares him and
some of his constituents. He stated that Alaska reviews its
constitution every ten years. He added he thought that the voters
in his district would be outvoted by the voters in the more urban
districts and that because English is a second language to many
voters in his district, they might be confused by the technical
wording of the language on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN disagreed, stating that Alaska has this
option but has never exercised it because the voters have always
voted down a constitutional convention.
Number 281
CHAIR JAMES commented that, while not coming out in support or
against this resolution, she felt that if the voters had had this
right in the past, they would have supported a number of issues to
the ballot, including term limits and the subsistence issue,
possibly without the rationality or balance of power that the
legislature can provide. She added though, that the people in
California had used the initiative process numerous times to the
extent that the legislature and administration of that state
complained about the massive intrusion of the people into their
affairs, and that the question had to be asked whether this was
good or bad. She said she had mixed feelings about the resolution,
but also knew that for some issues you would never get a two-thirds
majority of the legislature to agree, and this could prevent the
voice of the people from being heard. She further stated today we
have professional petitioners who can, for a few bucks, circulate
petitions and gather signatures, and she wasn't sure that everyone
who signed a petition knew exactly what they were signing. She
said that, in fact, she's heard a lot of people, who after signing
a petition say they don't go along with this process, but think the
people should have a right to vote on it. She further stated many
times the people only get one side of the argument, because one
side has more money to spend than the other. "The bottom line is
that the needs of the people are not met," she said. She concluded
by saying that no matter what they did, they were going to be
infringing on the rights of someone, and the best thing they could
do was to try and find a balance and to do the best job they could
do to have a democratic society, and that it is never going to be
perfect.
Number 337
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN concurred with Chair James and said he
felt that it probably summarized the position of a lot of
legislators. He said it was possible that, because of the formal
presentations given to legislative committees, legislators may be
more informed about an issue than the average citizen on the
street. He agreed with Chair James, that if you have a
preponderance of information on one side and not the other, you can
sway the public. He said one thing that should be pointed out is
that although legislators are elected by their constituents, it is
not necessarily representative of the whole voting public because
some legislators, especially Chairs, have the ability to kill
certain legislation, which the rest of the elected body doesn't
have a chance to vote on. He thought there was an imperfect
situation of being able to represent the will of the people without
their direct vote.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER was concerned that the actual wording
that would ultimately change the constitution would be written by
special interest groups, instead of going through a set process as
it has to now. He said this was what had happened in California,
and this was what they could not live with down there. He further
stated he wasn't sure the voting public was that interested in this
issue.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated he had read this resolution very
carefully because it had long-term ramifications. He stated he
viewed the constitution as something almost sacred, and he had
taken an oath to uphold and defend it to the best of his ability.
He said he wasn't sure that it was something that should be changed
by whims or popular ideas of a time. He said the constitution was
something that had had a lot of thought go into it, and the
forefathers of the Alaska Constitution had framed our constitution
much on the U.S. Constitution. He stated his biggest problem with
this resolution was that it allowed for changes to the constitution
with a simple majority of the people. He thought it might be more
appropriate if changes could only be made with a two-thirds
majority, as was required of the legislature. He thought this
would give a more true indication of the will of the people. He
said this was a tough call for him because he thought the people
should have a right to change their government by referendum.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she agreed with many of the
comments already made, but was also concerned with what might be
the fiscal impact of this resolution. She said she could see where
there could be increased costs to the election department and
attorney general's office, and she was curious as to whether the
departments were just not finished with the fiscal note or whether
it was just too difficult to determine the costs on this one.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that the cost would be $2,200; the
cost of ballot printing. He said in most cases the people paid for
the costs, which he thought demonstrated their sincerity over that
of the legislature, who didn't have to pay for the costs of
legislation. He explained the initiative process was something
that was very time consuming and which was paid for by the sponsors
of the initiative and not the public treasury.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON verified that the reason there was no
fiscal note was that it was just going to cost the $2,200 for the
printing of the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked which other states allowed the
initiative process of amending their constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied there were several. He further
stated that everyone seemed to be bringing up the case of
California as an example of where the people used the initiative
process often, and reminded the committee that the sponsors paid
the cost of the initiative and not the government. "Even though
California pushes through a lot of initiatives and they have a lot
of excitement about democracy, relatively few of the ballot
questions pass" he said. He continued, "I bet it's less than
fifteen percent. But the ones that do pass are well thought of."
He added that most of the time, the only reason it cost the state,
was when the government fought the decision of the initiative. He
further stated the advantage of this resolution was that it
required legislation accompany the initiative, and if the
legislation was better worded and met the intent of the initiative,
it could be chosen as the one to go on the ballot. He added that
the legislators hadn't been the best proposition writers either,
and the courts had even, on occasion, thrown out ballot
propositions from the legislature because the intent wasn't clear.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON requested an example of what type of
initiatives could be sponsored by the people, and where the
stopping point of these constitutional initiatives was. She
wondered if they could bring up just anything?
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that they most certainly could bring
up whatever they wanted. It was, after all, their government, but
he cautioned there would be checkpoints along the process; one of
the main ones would be the Lt. Governor's office. He said citizens
weren't expected to know the constitution or the procedures like
legislators were, and they might get angry and propose something
that wasn't workable. Thus, there were checkpoints along the way
to tone down outrageous initiatives. He also added that we could
get an idea of what type of issues might be brought up by looking
at the history of states, such as California, that allow the
initiative process.
CHAIR JAMES responded that currently the citizens of Alaska could
change the law by initiative, just not the constitution. She added
if the legislature puts out a ballot issue that is not a
constitutional mandate, then it is only an advisory vote, which the
legislature can choose to follow or reject. She also commented
that almost every organization has a committee to review its
bylaws, because life changes and things need to be modified. So,
she said, it is evident that we need a method to change our
constitution. The question is what is the best way and what is the
best way to represent the people. She added it was never a mistake
to ask the people, but the people had to be informed of the issue.
She said sometimes the information given to the people was
misleading or overwhelming in favor of one side or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER informed the committee that over the interim
there was a constitutional amendment commission formed, which
resulted in a request for legislation to form a citizens committee
to review requests for constitutional amendments coming from the
public or the legislature. He added there would be checks and
balances in the system, such as having the judiciary committees in
both the House and Senate review the requests and modify them as
necessary to put them in there proper form. Thus, there have been
steps to try and get more citizens involved in the process, but
short of the initiative process, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said several states had tried this method,
and that currently two states included having commission review as
a step in the initiative process. He said, though, the final
decision was still left up to the people, not the legislature. He
said what he was trying to do was to knock down the barriers to the
people; adding that, of the 500 or so proposed initiatives, there
was really only 20 or so that kept getting brought up because the
legislature wouldn't pass the issue. He also stated the biggest
thing that was always brought up was fear, fear, fear and reminded
the committee of the fear that the Founding Fathers must have felt
during the Revolutionary War with the British. He said they had to
constantly remind themselves of what they were fighting for - the
right of the individual citizen over government. He further stated
that people shouldn't judge Anchorage as being white, middle-class,
because he could remember when he represented the largest Native
village in Alaska in Mountain View, and could remember seeing fish
wheels and catch in their backyards and having to fight for their
subsistence rights. He added if you wanted a divisive community on
any issue, it was Anchorage. He went on to state the groups
opposed to the constitutional convention always used fear, fear,
fear as a tactic, and we shouldn't fear change, but should have
faith.
CHAIR JAMES called for a break so Representative Green and
Representative Porter could attend to some urgent business. She
called the meeting back to order shortly before 9 a.m.
Number 625
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN called for an amendment to line 17, page 2 of
the resolution to require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass a
constitutional amendment.
CHAIR JAMES called for comments on the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN objected saying history had proven that such
a large majority being required guaranteed minority rule, and this
was the exact opposite of representative democracy. He pointed out
that if legislators needed a two-thirds vote to get elected, not
many of them would be there. He also pointed out the initiative
process is a long process, requiring large public input. He said
it would be over a year-long process, requiring input from the
legislature. He said a two-thirds majority requirement was simply
too large, and it simply defied the wonderful experience of our
democracy.
CHAIR JAMES allowed Representative Ogan to respond.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted a two-thirds majority
requirement because he felt the constitution shouldn't be so easy
to change according to the popular ideas and political doctrines of
the day. He said we needed to have this protection for minority
viewpoints, and that an overwhelming majority should be required to
amend the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he could appreciate the sentiments of
Representative Ogan, but pointed out that in the 17 years he had
lived in Alaska, we had yet to elect a governor with even a simple
majority, and that such a large majority being required would just
ensure that no amendments would ever be made via the initiative
process.
CHAIR JAMES commented that there was a difference between voting
for a candidate and an issue, in that an issue was simply a yes/no
vote. She said there was only two choices. Whereas with
candidates there were many choices to choose from.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed, saying there were remedies to getting
a majority vote for candidates and he would support those proposals
as well as this amendment. He said he agreed with Representative
Ogan in that the constitution shouldn't be something that could be
tinkered with so easily. He stated he recognized there were
safeguards put in, including the requirement of a legislative
review, but they could only change the wording, not the intent of
a particular initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS agreed that the constitution must require
more than a simple majority to be changed, and a two-thirds
majority requirement would offer this protection. He said he would
support this amendment to the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the original constitutional convention
made decisions by a simple majority, and it was a simple majority
that elected the delegates. He added that it was barely a simple
majority that voted for the constitution itself. He said that
two-thirds was simply an astronomical number, which was simply
impossible to achieve. He cited the sixty percent requirement to
increase the tax cap in Anchorage as an example. He stated if the
committee wanted to kill the resolution, then they would succeed
with a two-thirds majority requirement, because no initiative in
the country would ever succeed in getting a two-thirds majority
approval.
TAPE 95-3, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was some other number between fifty and
sixty-six percent that would be reasonable and attainable.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that no number this high would be
achievable when talking about a citizen initiative. He said the
constitution was never meant to be sacred; it was simply an
agreement between the citizens and those that were elected to
govern. He said the Alaska Constitution was so limiting in so many
ways, that it defied democracy. He said the more that it was
brought out to the people, they would see that they didn't have
that many rights in this state.
CHAIR JAMES questioned Representative Martin as to how he would
respond that it took a two-thirds majority of the legislature to
pass a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied this was because the people didn't
trust their legislators.
Number 080
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote of the committee regarding
the proposed amendment to the resolution. Representatives James,
Ogan, Ivan, Porter, Robinson and Willis voted in favor of the
amendment. Representative Green voted against the amendment; so
the amendment passed.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN requested the resolution be held, saying that
with the new amendment, it was a worthless issue unless he could
get more information to persuade the committee otherwise.
CHAIR JAMES responded that she would hold the resolution, but urged
Representative Martin to try and find some percentage that was
agreeable over fifty percent, so he could get the needed support to
pass it through the legislature. She asked whether he would be
ready for the next committee meeting or if he wanted to make
another request for a new hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that he needed to talk with
constitutional experts, and would prefer to make another request.
He said a two-thirds majority was just too high of a requirement in
order for this resolution to be effective.
CHAIR JAMES replied that she personally agreed with him, but she
thought that in order to get the needed support to get it passed
through the legislature, he would need to find some percentage
between fifty and sixty-six percent. She reiterated that the
committee would hold the resolution until he said what he wanted
the committee to do with it.
CHAIR JAMES said the next item on the agenda was HB 70.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|